Darwinian Debating Device #17: “The Black Knight Taunt”

Is keiths an intellectual fraud or coward? Probably. Just review the exchanges in this thread between keiths and nullasalus. Mung

poor keiths. He can't keep track of the last thing he said so he demands that everyone else keep track of what he said and respond in some other thread. It's annoying trying to follow his evasions from thread to thread. Mung

I'll make future comments regarding my argument on vjtorley's new thread. It gets annoying having to hopscotch from thread to thread. keith s

Isn’t that a problem for design as well? We have no evidence of an intelligent designer creating life either. Until humans can create life how do we rule out an nature being capable of that unknown proceess?

Well, design is not limited to unintelligent causes so there are more resources available in the design model. In other words, design does not have to rely soley on chemical and physical determinants combining by chance. Intelligence can find solutions where natural forces cannot. We have evidence of what human intelligence does. We see things in nature that show signs of having been created by an even greater intelligence. Silver Asiatic

velikovskys: Actually, I think you had it right the first time.

Until humans can create life how do we rule out nature being capable of that unknown process?

But who is looking to rule this out? I'm certainly not. I'm also loathe to rule out that: - Humans may never be able to create life - Nature may never be able to create life Why would I rule any of these out? What truth-seeking scientific purpose would this serve? Can we be honest for just a second? Can we just admit that the motivation for ruling out the possibility that nature might not be capable of creating life is the desire to not let the Divine Foot back in the door? Else, why rule it out? Phinehas

It should be nature being incapable,sorry velikovskys

SA: velikovskys I believe it’s an OOL question. We’d have to determine first how/why chemicals bonded to create life. Isn't that a problem for design as well? We have no evidence of an intelligent designer creating life either. Until humans can create life how do we rule out an nature being capable of that unknown proceess? velikovskys

Evolutionists claim that bats come from rodents, or, rodent like animals. Try breeding mice, or any other rodent- selectively, without any genetic manipulation, and I guarantee that you will never be able to breed a flying mammal. How could natural selection do what intelligent, guided selection, can't? The genetic blueprint for wings capable of aviation just isn't there, and neither natural selection nor selective breeding will ever be able to create it. mjazzguitar

SA #340, Stephen Talbott put it like this:

Whenever we imagine a biological process aimed at achieving some particular result, we need to keep in mind that every element in that process is likely playing a role in an indeterminate number of other significant, and seemingly goal-directed, activities. The mystery in all this does not lie primarily in isolated “mechanisms” of interaction; the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.

Box

velikovskys I believe it's an OOL question. We'd have to determine first how/why chemicals bonded to create life. Actually, all we see is that they fall apart before ever bonding as a life form. Silver Asiatic

SA: As you ask, why don’t these supposed chemical formations (organisms) just dissipate and fall apart? They do, it even has a name. velikovskys

Box

Why doesn’t an organism just fall apart? What force is keeping it together? If it is just chemistry all the way down, what is this delicate balancing act we observe? These are the questions that are always ignored by materialists.

Exactly. Materialists start with incredibly complex highly functioning organisms that populate an immense biosphere with huge variations of process and design features. Then, after the fact, they fit all of that into an artificial construct. Then they claim that evolution is the cause. But they ignore the origins of this -- and that's the grand claim, it all started with chemistry and physics alone. As you ask, why don't these supposed chemical formations (organisms) just dissipate and fall apart? Why do they "want to live"? They were perfectly fine as inanimate chemistry, why not return to that state? I've seen a few brave evolutionists try to answer those questions and it was pathetic and totally confused at best. Silver Asiatic

Gary 332

But I must add that: if lifepsy is strictly talking philosophy (as opposed to believing scientific Theory of Intelligent Design depends on a given result) then at least Keith just found the right person to argue with, outside of the scientific arena.

Evolution "theory" usually does not even get to the level where it can be argued scientifically, because its proponents case for universal common descent is a shapeless mish-mash that is perpetually contradicting itself and accommodating the opposite to any given outcome offered as "evidence". lifepsy

In #336 , "It’s pretty obvious why, except for William, ID supporters are afraid to take up my challenge." is a quote attributed to keith. William J Murray

Keith said:

Sure I have. There are 10^38 possible trees of the 30 major taxa, which means there are 10^38 possible ways for one tree (derived from morphology, say) to mismatch another tree (derived from molecular data, say).

WJM asked:

“Are you saying that it is impossible for natural forces to generate a mismatched set of trees?”

I’m still waiting for an answer to that question. I've also reiterated another unanswered question:

Can you point to any examples of natural forces/processes creating an ONH (excluding the phenomena under debate)?

You answer those questions, and I'll respond to your following request: WJM said:

Your own source states plainly that no other process (besides design) is known to create ONH’s…

Keiths requests:

Quote, please.

William J Murray

It’s pretty obvious why, except for William, ID supporters are afraid to take up my challenge. I'm sure it is, given your self-serving internal dialogue that insists on characterizing your opponents as "desperate", "scrambling", "afraid", etc. IMO, they aren't responding to it because they don't consider it worth responding to. But, I guess that doesn't fit your preferred narrative. William J Murray

keiths said:

William tried the “it’s circular!” argument, but that doesn’t work because we have observed microevolution producing ONHs, and it doesn’t require a design explanation.

How do you know it doesn't require a design explanation? Can you point to any natural force or process (outside of that which is being debated) that produces ONH's? William J Murray

keith said:

It’s not circular. As Theobald’s examples show, you do get an ONH when microevolution is in operation. Microevolution does not require Designer intervention.

Who said anything about designer "intervention"? IDists assert that microevolution only exists within the framework of a highly designed supersystem; IOW, even if part of microevolution proceeds according to natural forces, it was set up within a designed context, a designed set of parameters, operating system, internal regulatory system, organizational infrastructure, etc. that uses natural laws and molecular tendencies in order to achieve a goal. It is entirely another matter to assert that the entire supersystem that enables the development of a biological ONH is unguided and was constructed via unguided processes. Whether intervention is required or not, there is a gaping chasm between what you are claiming as "non-controversial unguided microevolution that most IDists agree to" and what IDists actually agree to. They do not agree to your premise that microevolution can succeed at all without a deep infrastructure of design that enables/utilizes it.

Therefore, unguided evolution can produce an ONH.

Microevolution produces ONH's, therefore unguided microevoltion produces ONH's? Until you produce the science that quantifies microevolution as "unguided", you don't get to just tack that on because you say so. You can reiterate this as often as you like; it doesn't change the fact that that it is circular reasoning. You cannot demonstrate that effect X can be produced by unguided forces by using effect X as an example of what can be produced by unguided forces. Effect X is what is being challenged in the first place.

This is not controversial.

I would beg to differ; I think that your characterization of "unguided microevolution" and virtually every IDist's characterization substantively differs in that you are assuming that unguided evolution outside of a guided framework can achieve microevolutionary successes and ONH's, and IDists most certainly do not think this is true because they do not believe that life itself can exist outside of designed framework, much less generate ONH's. In any event, lack of controversy is irrelevant to the argument and the challenges I've raised.

Vjtorley understands it,

What possible difference does that make? Are you referring to Vjtorely as an expert? Do you agree to every view vjtorley expresses?

and if you simply think about gradual, unguided evolution with primarily vertical inheritance, you can see that it must be true.

Insisting that I should be able to see it is not a demonstration or a significant argument. Tell me where your "unguided" assertion about the nature of microevolution and what it produces has been quantitatively verified. Otherwise, you're making an unsupported assumption.

Are you really not seeing this? Do I need to provide a detailed example?

No, what you need to provide is the science where microevolutionary forces and what they produce have been quantitatively verified as being "unguided", including verification that their success doesn't depend upon a guided infrastrcture and system. Otherwise, you have no grounds to support such an assertion.

You can use phylogenetic analysis in court cases, fercrissakes. Do you think the judges are idiots for allowing that kind of evidence? Or do they, and the experts they rely on, understand something that you don’t?

You must have me confused with someone who is arguing that a biological ONH doesn't exist, or that ONH's aren't a necessary product of evolutionary systems. My argument is not and has never been about whether or not the ONH exists because I have agreed to that arguendo. My argument here is about your assumption that unguided forces can generate a ONH in the first place. Please refer me to some process other than biological evolution (since it is the thing being contested), and other than a system created/designed by man (designed), that generates an ONH, to provide evidence that natural forces in principle can actually generate an ONH. William J Murray

Now, I’m waiting for the science – the peer reviewed scientific experiment – that tested for not just God, but intelligent design, guidance, period in nature.

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=74175 Gary S. Gaulin

But I must add that: if lifepsy is strictly talking philosophy (as opposed to believing scientific Theory of Intelligent Design depends on a given result) then at least Keith just found the right person to argue with, outside of the scientific arena. Gary S. Gaulin

Keiths,

Anything can be explained by saying “God did it.”

And anything can be explained by saying "chance did it" or "it's a brute fact". Now, I'm waiting for the science - the peer reviewed scientific experiment - that tested for not just God, but intelligent design, guidance, period in nature. Why aren't you delivering?

IDers are looking for something better than that. They want to demonstrate that the pattern of life actually requires a designer, not merely that it could be explained by design.

Wrong. ID proponents believe that they can infer, provisionally, design in nature, that this inference is scientific and better supported (currently) than alternate explanations. They're not looking for 'requires' to the exclusivity of all other possibilities.

The Rain Fairy could be responsible for the weather, but every normally functioning adult can see that it is a poor explanation when compared to modern meteorology.

See, you say 'The Rain Fairy', but I just gave you the atheist version of the Rain Fairy. And guided or unguided are not in competition with modern meteorology, because guidedness claims - or claims of a lack of guidance - are not scientific claims. Why are you running away from my questions, Keiths? I asked you for the scientific papers - the peer reviewed experiments - that detect or rule out design in nature, or demonstrate that a given natural act X occurred entirely blind and without guidance, as opposed to guided. Why won't you answer? I have a feeling I know why. See, you don't have those papers. You don't actually have scientific evidence for your position, and you know it. You also don't care that you are, even according to Eugenie Scott, violating science and misleading others about it. Because you don't care about science, and possibly don't understand it. Prove me wrong, Keiths. Answer my questions, or admit you've got nothing. nullasalus

keith s, 325 Thank you for responding. Now let's examine your response. I don't have to ponder it too long because I already knew what you would say.

If evolution were fast enough, or if there was enough horizontal transfer going on, then yes, of course the ONH signal would become unidentifiable.

Here you have admitted that unguided evolution predicts both an identifiable and non-identifiable objective nested hierarchy. Either patterns could be accommodated.

But we know that hasn’t happened. There is an ONH. The consensus phylogeny of the 30 major taxa is just that: a consensus phylogeny. The ONH signal is strong, unlike what you would get if evolution were too fast or there was too much horizontal transfer.

But the signal strength of the ONH no longer helps you and I'm sure you realize why. The reasoning you've employed for inferring that the ONH was produced by unguided evolution to begin with is the claim that the ONH is the only pattern unguided evolution is capable of producing... to recall your earlier double-sided coin metaphor:

Keith s #231 Suppose you have two objects: 1. A coin with ONH stamped on both sides. 2. A trillion-sided die with ONH engraved on one and only one side.

Now you have clearly contradicted yourself by admitting that unguided evolution also predicts a pattern that does not result in an identifiable objective nested hierarchy. In fact, unguided evolution could produce "a trillion" different patterns that are not recognizable as an objective nested hierarchy. Keith S, your argument has imploded and has now turned against you. We are left wondering, of all the countless different non-hierarchical signal patterns unguided evolution could have potentially produced, why did it coincidentally result in such a distinct and recognizable objective nested hierarchy? What are the chances? To repeat Denton again: "...surely no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the trunk and branches of the supposed tree, and left all remaining groups... How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if nature’s divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity… " lifepsy

Arguing whether "evolution" is "guided" or "unguided" is currently a philosophical question for philosophers to ponder NOT a scientific question that matters to the Theory of Intelligent Design. It is best for ID theory to do away with "evolution" generalizations. Just let them become sales pitches for selling cars and such, by ignoring them. Just once using the word (or other used by Darwinian theory) muddles you by your then being scientifically obliged to operationally define Darwinian words not even Darwinian theory has operationally defined in a way all scientists can agree on and accept. After the theory explains how "intelligent cause" works the who/what is "guiding" is then known, but NOT before. It is thus a total waste of time to argue. The most successful strategy is to completely refuse to endlessly go in circles over something that does not even matter to ID. Gary S. Gaulin

keith s, your "challenge", like your "argument", is total meaningless garbage. The sad part is your willfully ignorant lying cowardice is right up there with the best evolutionism has to offer. Joe

It's pretty obvious why, except for William, ID supporters are afraid to take up my challenge. You would have to explain why the Rain Fairy, the Streambed Designer, the Explosion Designer and the angels pushing the planets around are all bad explanations, but the ONH Fairy -- aka God the Designer -- is a good one. Good luck to anyone willing to try that. William tried the "it's circular!" argument, but that doesn't work because we have observed microevolution producing ONHs, and it doesn't require a design explanation. Anyone else willing to take a stab? Or is William the only IDer who will actually try to defend ID? keith s

But alas, all the black knight is left with is a 'challenge' since he has no arms and legs to 'argue' with anymore! :) "come back here and take what's coming to ya, I'll bite your legs off!" :) bornagain77

lifepsy:

Does the production of an objective nested hierarchy via unguided evolution necessitate that this objective nested hierarchy will become identifiable?

Yes, because actual unguided evolution is gradual, with predominantly vertical inheritance. That kind of evolution produces an ONH. Guided evolution, on the other hand, need not produce a recoverable ONH, because it doesn't have to be gradual, and it isn't limited primarily to vertical inheritance. That is why my argument is powerful not only against creationism and common design, but also against guided evolution.

Or could the signal of common descent via unguided evolution potentially become masked to the extent that all or major portions of the objective nested hierarchy become unidentifiable?

If evolution were fast enough, or if there was enough horizontal transfer going on, then yes, of course the ONH signal would become unidentifiable. But we know that hasn't happened. There is an ONH. The consensus phylogeny of the 30 major taxa is just that: a consensus phylogeny. The ONH signal is strong, unlike what you would get if evolution were too fast or there was too much horizontal transfer. Now, before dashing off another hasty and ill-thought-out reply, stop and ponder this for a while. keith s

PLEASE STOP giving your enemy the advantage by their misleading you into believing that a hypothesis is anything other than a TESTABLE (true or false) idea. An idea you can TEST: See: Buddy has a hypothesis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0CGhy6cNJE The definition for a HYPOTHESIS is now all very preschool simple. The only thing to be DEMONSTRATED is how something "intelligent" works then from that THEORY base (which operationally defines that one word) explain how "intelligent cause" works (as required by the THEORY of Intelligent Design) so that (technology willing) intelligent cause can be modeled. Thank you. Gary S. Gaulin

Keith seems to be more comfortable arguing about his "challenge", than defending his "argument". Box

nullasalus, Anything can be explained by saying "God did it." IDers are looking for something better than that. They want to demonstrate that the pattern of life actually requires a designer, not merely that it could be explained by design. The Rain Fairy could be responsible for the weather, but every normally functioning adult can see that it is a poor explanation when compared to modern meteorology. What about you? Do you understand why the Rain Fairy is a poor explanation? Are you brave enough to take the challenge? Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why. keith s

William, Okay, so provided that there's nothing special about the streambed, your answer to the first three questions is that Bob's friend has the better theory. Good. We agree on those three. Now on to the fourth. You write:

Based on the information given, neither of them have a theory that is not riddled with gaping ideology-based assumptions. Bob’s friend’s theory is circular, assuming the evidence was generated by unguided forces and then using that evidence to demonstrate the explanatory power of unguided forces.

It's not circular. As Theobald's examples show, you do get an ONH when microevolution is in operation. Microevolution does not require Designer intervention. Therefore, unguided evolution can produce an ONH. This is not controversial. Vjtorley understands it, and if you simply think about gradual, unguided evolution with primarily vertical inheritance, you can see that it must be true. Are you really not seeing this? Do I need to provide a detailed example? You can use phylogenetic analysis in court cases, fercrissakes. Do you think the judges are idiots for allowing that kind of evidence? Or do they, and the experts they rely on, understand something that you don't?

Also, Bob’s friend is assuming that a pattern only otherwise known to be generated by design can be, and would be, generated by unguided forces, even though no other unguided forces(meaning, besides the phenomena in dispute) are known to generate that pattern.

This gets us back to your bizarre assertion:

Your own source states plainly that no other process (besides design) is known to create ONH’s…

Quote, please.

Bob is assuming both everything his friend assumes (that the “unguided” nature of the evidence has been rigorously established), and is also assuming that “the designer” had trillions of options. However, Bob is correct in assigning the evolutionary pattern to a designer, because no other kind of processes are known to produce that pattern.

Suppose you observe raindrops, with absolutely no sign of guidance, leaving a pattern of impressions in the mud. Then, somewhere else, you see that same pattern of impressions in a mudbank. Which is more likely, that the second pattern was produced by unguided rain, or that it was designed? keith s

Just to be clear, and for the record, what are your answers to the four questions? In each case, who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? If your answers differ, please explain why.

First things first, Keith. I've called you out - I want to know the peer-reviewed scientific experiments where 'unguided' versus 'guided' were tested for in relation to evolution, physics, etc. With 'guided' including 'God' or even 'Very powerful designers', a la Nick Bostrom's simulator sysops. And if you don't have any, I'd like you to cop to as much - admit that there's zero science behind your claim. On the other hand, if you do offer up some nice, tasty peer-reviewed scientific experiments - well, I'm going to have a whole lot of fun examining their methodology. We're already at the heart of the matter. I'm not going to chase you away from it, down a rabbit hole. nullasalus

William had the guts to answer my challenge, for which I give him credit. What about the rest of you? Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why. keith s

nullasalus, Just to be clear, and for the record, what are your answers to the four questions? In each case, who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? If your answers differ, please explain why. keith s

Box,

Why doesn’t an organism just fall apart? What force is keeping it together? If it is just chemistry all the way down, what is this delicate balancing act we observe? These are the questions that are always ignored by materialists.

Seriously, Box? You believe in some kind of "life force" above and beyond physics and chemistry? Get thee to a library! The élan vital has long since been abandoned by biologists. keith s

keiths,

A rock breaks off the side of a cliff and tumbles into the gorge below. Do we know that it is unguided? No. Is Intelligent Falling a plausible explanation? No, and most ID proponents are smart enough to recognize that.

What most ID proponents would do is recognize that their ID arguments wouldn't apply to that scenario. Yet many ID proponents would also believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, who foresaw and preordained (or, for some, even ultimately orchestrated) that falling rock. Now, they wouldn't call that intelligent design of the sort they mean with regards to Behe and company, because ID proponents wisely recognize the difference between ID arguments and arguments for God's design specifically. But what I've said still stands: there is zero scientific evidence for the claim 'that was not designed'. If someone digs in their heels and says, 'It wasn't designed because... well, it just wasn't!'? I'm unimpressed, and you should be too. I'd like the evidence, please. The scientific test. I'm sure you have some, right?

If you don’t believe in the Rain Fairy, the Streambed Designer, the Explosion Designer, or the angels pushing the planets around, why would you believe in a designer who just happens to produce an ONH?

Considering intelligent designers we know of demonstrably can make it rain, develop artificial streams, certainly make explosions, etc... why in the world would I or anyone else say 'It was totally undesigned/happened by blind chance!' when I not only A) utterly lack any scientific evidence for such a claim, and B) have plenty of scientific and non-scientific evidence that weighs against it? Here's a tip, keiths. The magical rain fairy, the magical planet moving fairy, and the magical universe crafting fairy doesn't become more plausible when you stipulate that the fairy is mindless, blind, and exists and operates by chance. Or do you believe in fairies like that, with zero evidence? nullasalus

Verse and Music: Isaiah 40:31 but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint. Hillsong United - You Are My Strength https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGMOKBki56k bornagain77

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini put the problem that Quarter Power Scaling presents to Darwinism this way:

“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

i.e. The reason why ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are impossible for Darwinism to explain is that Natural Selection operates on the 3-Dimensional phenotypes of an organism. ’4-Dimensional’ metabolic pathways are simply ‘invisible’ to natural selection. The fact that 4-Dimensional things are for all intents and purposes completely invisible to 3-Dimensional things is best illustrated by ‘flatland’:

Dr Quantum - Flatland (3-D in 2-D world) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

Also of note, the energy efficiency of the cell vastly exceeds the energy efficiency of man-made devices,,,

Life Leads the Way to Invention - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: a cell is 10,000 times more energy-efficient than a transistor. “In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.” This and other amazing facts lead to an obvious conclusion: inventors ought to look to life for ideas.,,, Essentially, cells may be viewed as circuits that use molecules, ions, proteins and DNA instead of electrons and transistors. That analogy suggests that it should be possible to build electronic chips – what Sarpeshkar calls “cellular chemical computers” – that mimic chemical reactions very efficiently and on a very fast timescale. http://creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100226a

Moreover, as if all that was not 'horrendous' enough for the committed Darwinist, the programming of the cell appears to be designed along the parameters of 'reversible computation', i.e. ... the integrated coding between the DNA, RNA and Proteins of the cell apparently seem to be ingeniously programmed along the very stringent guidelines laid out by Landauer’s principle, by Charles Bennett from IBM of Quantum Teleportation fame, for ‘reversible computation’ in order to achieve such amazing energy/metabolic efficiency.

Logical Reversibility of Computation* - C. H. Bennett - 1973 Excerpt from last paragraph: The biosynthesis and biodegradation of messenger RNA may be viewed as convenient examples of logically reversible and irreversible computation, respectively. Messenger RNA. a linear polymeric informational macromolecule like DNA, carries the genetic information from one or more genes of a DNA molecule. and serves to direct the synthesis of the proteins encoded by those genes. Messenger RNA is synthesized by the enzyme RNA polymerase in the presence of a double-stranded DNA molecule and a supply of RNA monomers (the four nucleotide pyrophosphates ATP, GTP, CTP, and UTP) [7]. The enzyme attaches to a specific site on the DNA molecule and moves along, sequentially incorporating the RNA monomers into a single-stranded RNA molecule whose nucleotide sequence exactly matches that of the DNA. The pyrophosphate groups are released into the surrounding solution as free pyrophosphate molecules. The enzyme may thus be compared to a simple tape-copying Turing machine that manufactures its output tape rather than merely writing on it. Tape copying is a logically reversible operation. and RNA polymerase is both thermodynamically and logically reversible.,,, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall04/cos576/papers/bennett73.html Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon - Charles H. Bennett - September 2003 Excerpt: Of course, in practice, almost all data processing is done on macroscopic apparatus, dissipating macroscopic amounts of energy far in excess of what would be required by Landauer’s principle. Nevertheless, some stages of biomolecular information processing, such as transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by chemical reactions that are reversible not only in principle but in practice.,,,, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135521980300039X Logically and Physically Reversible Natural Computing: A Tutorial - 2013 Excerpt: This year marks the 40th anniversary of Charles Bennett’s seminal paper on reversible computing. Bennett’s contribution is remembered as one of the first to demonstrate how any deterministic computation can be simulated by a logically reversible Turing machine. Perhaps less remembered is that the same paper suggests the use of nucleic acids to realise physical reversibility. In context, Bennett’s foresight predates Leonard Adleman’s famous experiments to solve instances of the Hamiltonian path problem using strands of DNA — a landmark date for the field of natural computing — by more than twenty years. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-38986-3_20

Of realted note, The amazing energy efficiency possible with ‘reversible computation’ has been known about since Charles Bennett laid out the principles for such reversible programming in 1973, but as far as I know, due to the extreme level of complexity involved in achieving such ingenious ‘reversible coding’, has yet to be accomplished in any meaningful way for our computer programs even though the payoff would be huge:

Reversible computing Excerpt: Reversible computing is a model of computing where the computational process to some extent is reversible, i.e., time-invertible.,,, Although achieving this goal presents a significant challenge for the design, manufacturing, and characterization of ultra-precise new physical mechanisms for computing, there is at present no fundamental reason to think that this goal cannot eventually be accomplished, allowing us to someday build computers that generate much less than 1 bit's worth of physical entropy (and dissipate much less than kT ln 2 energy to heat) for each useful logical operation that they carry out internally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing#The_reversibility_of_physics_and_reversible_computing

bornagain77

Have you read this thread? It’s all about the evolvability of metabolic changes. actually I read it and commented on it, twice:

‘laws’, whether they be hidden laws or in your face laws, have never ’caused’ anything to happen in this universe. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evolution-driven-by-laws-not-random-mutations/#comment-524236 Fairly severe constraints are found for unlimited plasticity in micro-organisms and even for individual proteins. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evolution-driven-by-laws-not-random-mutations/#comment-524270

Moreover, Metabolic pathways as fascinating to ponder, for instance they are found to be optimal,,,

Metabolism: A Cascade of Design - 2009 Excerpt: A team of biological and chemical engineers wanted to understand just how robust metabolic pathways are. To gain this insight, the researchers compared how far the errors cascade in pathways found in a variety of single-celled organisms with errors in randomly generated metabolic pathways. They learned that when defects occur in the cell’s metabolic pathways, they cascade much shorter distances than when errors occur in random metabolic routes. Thus, it appears that metabolic pathways in nature are highly optimized and unusually robust, demonstrating that metabolic networks in the protoplasm are not haphazardly arranged but highly organized. http://www.reasons.org/metabolism-cascade-design Making the Case for Intelligent Design More Robust - 2010 Excerpt: ,,, In other words, metabolic pathways are optimized to withstand inevitable concentration changes of metabolites. http://www.reasons.org/making-case-intelligent-design-more-robust Optimal Design of Metabolism - Dr. Fazale Rana - July 2012 Excerpt: A new study further highlights the optimality of the cell’s metabolic systems. Using the multi-dimension optimization theory, researchers evaluated the performance of the metabolic systems of several different bacteria. The data generated by monitoring the flux (movement) of compounds through metabolic pathways (like the movement of cars along the roadways) allowed researchers to assess the behavior of cellular metabolism. They determined that metabolism functions optimally for a system that seeks to accomplish multiple objectives. It looks as if the cell’s metabolism is optimized to operate under a single set of conditions. At the same time, it can perform optimally with relatively small adjustments to the metabolic operations when the cell experiences a change in condition. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-optimal-design-of-metabolism

Moreover, Darwinian evolution has no way of explaining such optimality in the 'horrendously complex' metabolic pathways (or anything else for that matter),,,

Study demonstrates evolutionary ‘fitness’ not the most important determinant of success – February 7, 2014 – with illustration Excerpt: The researchers found that the ‘fittest’ simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales. http://phys.org/news/2014-02-evolutionary-important-success.html

This following headline sums up the preceding study very nicely:

Fittest (Optimal) Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive – February 7, 2014 http://crev.info/2014/02/fittest-cant-survive-if-they-never-arrive/

Moreover, as if that were not ‘horrendously’ bad enough for Darwinists, metabolic pathways are found to operate on ‘Quarter Power Scaling’. i.e. Metabolic Pathways operate as if they were ‘four-dimensional’, not three-dimensional

Kleiber’s law Excerpt: Kleiber’s law,[1] named after Max Kleiber’s biological work in the early 1930s, is the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal’s metabolic rate scales to the 3/4 power of the animal’s mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law 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

bornagain77

So "Bob" must be the evolutionist. Joe

Family trees are examples of branched descent with modification, yet family trees to do not form objective nested hierarchies based on defining traits. And seeing that unguided evolution is impotent what pattern would we expect from it? Joe

1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

Without knowing what they actually saw, there's no way to answer. If it was a dry streambed where every rock, pebble and grain of sand and silt was arranged to spell out a Shakespearean sonnet, then bob has the better theory. If the arrangement appears to be what natural forces are otherwise known to easily produce, his friend has the better theory.

2. Bob is invited to the scene of an investigation by a friend who is an explosive forensics expert. They observe serious damage radiating out in all directions from a central point, decreasing with distance, as if an explosion had taken place. Bob’s friend performs some tests and finds large amounts of explosive residue. Bob says, “Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make it look like there was an explosion here. They even planted explosive residue on the scene! Of course, there wasn’t really an explosion.” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

Bob's friend. Bob inserts a blatantly unnecessary commodity into the explanation.

3. Bob and another friend, an astronomer, observe the positions of the planets over several years. They determine that the planets are moving in ellipses, with the sun at one of the foci. Bob says, “Isn’t that amazing? The angels pushing the planets around are following exactly the paths that the planets would have followed if gravity had been acting on them!” The astronomer gives Bob a funny look and says “Maybe gravity is working on those planets, with no angels involved at all. Doesn’t that seem more likely to you?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

Bob's friend. Bob inserts an unnecessary commodity into the explanation.

4. Bob is hanging out at the office of a friend who is an evolutionary biologist. The biologist shows Bob how the morphological and molecular data establish the phylogenetic tree of the 30 major taxa of life to an amazing accuracy of 38 decimal places. “There couldn’t be a better confirmation of unguided evolution,” the biologist says. “Don’t be ridiculous,” Bob replies. “All of those lifeforms were clearly designed. It’s just that the Designer chose to imitate unguided evolution, instead of picking one of the trillions of other options available to him.” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

Based on the information given, neither of them have a theory that is not riddled with gaping ideology-based assumptions. Bob's friend's theory is circular, assuming the evidence was generated by unguided forces and then using that evidence to demonstrate the explanatory power of unguided forces. Also, Bob's friend is assuming that a pattern only otherwise known to be generated by design can be, and would be, generated by unguided forces, even though no other unguided forces(meaning, besides the phenomena in dispute) are known to generate that pattern. Bob is assuming both everything his friend assumes (that the "unguided" nature of the evidence has been rigorously established), and is also assuming that "the designer" had trillions of options. However, Bob is correct in assigning the evolutionary pattern to a designer, because no other kind of processes are known to produce that pattern. William J Murray

Silver Asiatic: A few things always remain unexplained – why the drive for reproductive success or survival at all? This necessarily has to be traced to chemistry and physics (in the materialist model).

The drive for reproductive success and survival pertains to the organism as a whole. But, indeed, what is this organism in a materialistic model? And, indeed, how is it traced to chemistry and physics?

Silver Asiatic #301: Why shouldn’t natural forces just produce non-life? Even after the lucky chance that life arose by accident, why not natural forces just killing off all life – with no OHN produced at all?

Why doesn't an organism just fall apart? What force is keeping it together? If it is just chemistry all the way down, what is this delicate balancing act we observe? These are the questions that are always ignored by materialists. Box

spamagain77, Have you read this thread? It's all about the evolvability of metabolic changes. Denyse helpfully posted it, thinking that it was actually evidence against unguided evolution. Oops. Thanks, Denyse! keith s

William,

Your own source states plainly that no other process (besides design) is known to create ONH’s...

Huh? Does anyone have any idea what William is talking about? Quote please, William. keith s

modified for humor: "Bob is walking through the laboratory with his friend, a Darwinian biologist. They come across what appears to be a Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell. After some thought, Bob states that every pathway, molecular machine, and protein was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Major Metabolic Pathways designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This Major Metabolic Pathways have exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by natural selection and random mutations. Why invoke a Major Metabolic Pathways designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? Map Of Major Metabolic Pathways In A Cell – picture http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AKkRRa65sIo/TlltZupczfI/AAAAAAAAE1s/nVSv_5HRpZg/s1600/pathway-1b.png Interactive schematic: http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 bornagain77

Is anyone brave enough to respond to the actual challenge?

Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why.

"Share your answers" means this: For each of the four scenarios, tell us who has the better theory: Bob, or his friend. "Explain exactly why" means this: If your answers to the four questions differed, tell us what the relevant differences are that caused you to give a different answer to one question versus the others. keith s

keith said:

A rock breaks off the side of a cliff and tumbles into the gorge below. Do we know that it is unguided? No. Is Intelligent Falling a plausible explanation? No, and most ID proponents are smart enough to recognize that.

One hopes that most ID proponents are smart enough to recognize the abject failure of this comparison. Do rocks breaking off a side of a cliff necessarily tumble into objective nested hierarchies? Your own source states plainly that no other process (besides design) is known to create ONH's, so your example is completely irrelevant. Nobody is debating whether or not some rocks tumbled into an intelligently designed pattern, but if some rocks did tumble into a pattern otherwise only known to be generated by design, then we'd be debating natural vs design in that scenario as well.

They won’t argue for Intelligent Falling, and they won’t argue that angels are pushing the planets around.

We would be arguing that design was a causal factor if the pattern they fell into was otherwise only known to be generated by design. We would also be so arguing if a planet (or any other object in space) moved in a way only otherwise known to be the result of design.

Yet they will argue that God the Designer guided evolution, and that the pattern that was produced just happens to be the same one that unguided evolution would have produced, had it been operating.

Only, you have absolutely no basis for claiming that the pattern we see is the pattern that unguided evolution would produce, because (1) the only other examples of ONH's are design artifacts, and (2) no aspect of evolution has, to my knowledge, been rigorously quantified as fundamentally "unguided".

It makes no sense. If you don’t believe in the Rain Fairy, the Streambed Designer, the Explosion Designer, or the angels pushing the planets around, why would you believe in a designer who just happens to produce an ONH?

This is keiths shifting the burden once again. I have no case to support here; this is keith's argument, keith's premises, keith's assumptions, keith's conclusion. I do not have to claim and then defend that evolutionary processes are guided; keith must demonstrate that unguided processes in the real world can, and will, produce an ONH, and those processes must be quantified as indeed unguided. Keiths simply doesn't know if Markovian ONH can be generated by unguided processes; he assumes it, therefore his correlation to falling rocks and dry steambeds is nothing more than his assumption that they are alike and can all be accounted for via unguided processes. William J Murray

WJM:

Unfortunately, he and every other anti-ID advocate insist there exists no means by which to make an inference between design and unguided causal categories.

Exactly. Supporting the "unguided" part of the assertion would be tantamount to admitting that a design inference is possible. But not supporting the "unguided" part leaves his "bomb" flopping about like the impotent little damp squid it is. Phinehas

keiths: A slightly altered version of your question is illustrative.

1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a sand castle. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a sand castle designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This sand castle has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water and wind erosion. Why invoke a sand castle designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend

You see, once you set aside the assumption that natural forces are easily and routinely capable of producing what is seen, the answer isn't nearly as obvious as you suppose. Now, who has the better theory will depend on whether Bob's friend can demonstrate that flowing water and wind are capable of creating the sand structure in question. If he cannot do so, then Bob's explanation stands as, if not the better theory, certainly a valid alternative to the unguided explanation, does it not? Phinehas

WJM: -- I challenged you on your claim that unguided evolution necessarily produces ONH. -- “Are you saying that it is impossible for natural forces to generate a mismatched set of trees?” As I read it, that's what needs to be proven and has not been. I believe the claim is that natural forces necessarily generate only an ONH and no other pattern is possible. A few things always remain unexplained - why the drive for reproductive success or survival at all? This necessarily has to be traced to chemistry and physics (in the materialist model). So chemistry and physics can only produce an ONH and not any multitude of other patterns or chaos? Why shouldn't natural forces just produce non-life? Even after the lucky chance that life arose by accident, why not natural forces just killing off all life - with no OHN produced at all? Silver Asiatic

The money quote from keith's "bob" analogy:

“All of those lifeforms were clearly designed. It’s just that the Designer chose to imitate unguided evolution, instead of picking one of the trillions of other options available to him.”

The problem is that we do not have a rigorously verified case of "unguided evolution" by which we could compare what we observe. We do know, however, that no other natural force or process creates the pattern we observe in biological evolution, nor does any known natural process or force generate the kinds of complex, interdependent, functional mechanisms found throughout biological organisms. The only thing we know that creates the hierarchical patterns and similar machines as those found in biology is a designing intelligence. Outside of the phenomena under debate, the only known source of ONH's is design, and the only known source of digital, coded data is design, and the only known source of complex, functional machinery is design. Keith wants to use the very phenomena under debate as evidence that unguided processes can produce the pattern found there (and, I'm sure, those other things). Unfortunately, he and every other anti-ID advocate insist there exists no means by which to make an inference between design and unguided causal categories. William J Murray

William:

I’m still waiting for an answer.

The same advice applies to you as to lifepsy:

I’m not ignoring you, lifepsy. I’ll get to your comment, but you’ll need to be patient. There is only one of me, and I have a real life outside of UD. You can thank the moderators, by the way. Ever fearful of open discussion, they are silently banning ID critics. That means there are fewer critics available to answer your comments, which means you’ll have to wait longer for a response. You might want to take advantage of the waiting time by cracking an evolution textbook. :-)

keith s

nullasalus:

And it is being pointed out here that the sense of ‘unguided’ evolution you’re talking about is not even observed in the original case, because there is no scientific observation of ‘unguided’ evolution. What was observed was descent with modification – NOT ‘unguided’ evolution, or ‘unguided’ anything else for that matter.

A rock breaks off the side of a cliff and tumbles into the gorge below. Do we know that it is unguided? No. Is Intelligent Falling a plausible explanation? No, and most ID proponents are smart enough to recognize that. They won't argue for Intelligent Falling, and they won't argue that angels are pushing the planets around. Yet they will argue that God the Designer guided evolution, and that the pattern that was produced just happens to be the same one that unguided evolution would have produced, had it been operating. It makes no sense. If you don't believe in the Rain Fairy, the Streambed Designer, the Explosion Designer, or the angels pushing the planets around, why would you believe in a designer who just happens to produce an ONH? keith s

In 293 I said: "I didn’t claim that microevolution was unguided." Corrected: "I didn't claim that microevolution was guided." William J Murray

Keith: 1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

How can water explain the existence of rocks, pebbles, sand and silt particles? I get it Keith, we do indeed need to invoke a Streambed Designer. Box

Keith said:

Sure I have. There are 10^38 possible trees of the 30 major taxa, which means there are 10^38 possible ways for one tree (derived from morphology, say) to mismatch another tree (derived from molecular data, say).

I asked: "Are you saying that it is impossible for natural forces to generate a mismatched set of trees?" I'm still waiting for an answer. William J Murray

… But surely no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the trunk and branches of the supposed tree, and left all remaining groups: mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises, vertebrates, molluscs, hymenoptera, fleas and so on, so isolated and related only in a strictly sisterly sense.

Such a good point from Denton - having refuted the argument so long ago. Those clear distinctions look much more like design than by an unguided process. Additionally, he points out that a strict classification of hierarchy doesn't allow for overlaps, which would be necessary for fish to become mammal to become human. Silver Asiatic

keith said:

No, I am using Theobald’s observed cases of descent with modification to demonstrate that unguided evolution produces ONHs, and then pointing out that we also see ONHs in the unobserved cases. Coincidence?

Only, it doesn't demonstrate that "unguided" evolution does anything of the sort. The "unguided" part is just assumed and thus exposes the circularity of your argument. Please point me to where the processes involved were rigorously vetted as "unguided".

By the way, you’re contradicting yourself if you claim that microevolution is guided. Earlier you told us that if a natural process was capable of explaining a phenomenon, then the natural explanation should be preferred over ID.

Another attempt to shift the burden. I didn't claim that microevolution was unguided. I challenged you on your claim that unguided evolution necessarily produces ONH. That means the onus is on you to demonstrate that an evolutionary process that has been rigorously quantified as "unguided" in fact necessarily produces ONH. I await the data that explains what criteria was used in determining the "unguided" status of said evolutionary processes.

Come on, William. Even the YECs acknowledge that Designer intervention is not required for microevolution.

Wishing that you were arguing with someone else doesn't answer my challenges.

Read Theobald again:

It doesn't matter how many times I read Theobald because he's not the one trying to slip his conclusion into his premises - you are. You are simply asserting that that which creates ONHs in biology is unguided, and then saying that because ONH exists in biology, it is evidence for unguided evolution. Entirely circular. William J Murray

Lifespy: How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if nature’s divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity…

Who can argue against that? I suppose Theobald can, the leading light who states that science can answer the question “how exactly did/does the Creator create?” Box

No, I am using Theobald’s observed cases of descent with modification to demonstrate that unguided evolution produces ONHs, and then pointing out that we also see ONHs in the unobserved cases.

And it is being pointed out here that the sense of 'unguided' evolution you're talking about is not even observed in the original case, because there is no scientific observation of 'unguided' evolution. What was observed was descent with modification - NOT 'unguided' evolution, or 'unguided' anything else for that matter. There is no observation of a lack of guidance, just as there is no observation of 'events that take place yet have no cause whatsoever'. nullasalus

A challenge to the IDers in this thread:

Just to hammer my point home, here is a comment of mine from TSZ:

Some more questions for the ID supporters out there: 1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? 2. Bob is invited to the scene of an investigation by a friend who is an explosive forensics expert. They observe serious damage radiating out in all directions from a central point, decreasing with distance, as if an explosion had taken place. Bob’s friend performs some tests and finds large amounts of explosive residue. Bob says, “Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make it look like there was an explosion here. They even planted explosive residue on the scene! Of course, there wasn’t really an explosion.” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? 3. Bob and another friend, an astronomer, observe the positions of the planets over several years. They determine that the planets are moving in ellipses, with the sun at one of the foci. Bob says, “Isn’t that amazing? The angels pushing the planets around are following exactly the paths that the planets would have followed if gravity had been acting on them!” The astronomer gives Bob a funny look and says “Maybe gravity is working on those planets, with no angels involved at all. Doesn’t that seem more likely to you?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? 4. Bob is hanging out at the office of a friend who is an evolutionary biologist. The biologist shows Bob how the morphological and molecular data establish the phylogenetic tree of the 30 major taxa of life to an amazing accuracy of 38 decimal places. “There couldn’t be a better confirmation of unguided evolution,” the biologist says. “Don’t be ridiculous,” Bob replies. “All of those lifeforms were clearly designed. It’s just that the Designer chose to imitate unguided evolution, instead of picking one of the trillions of other options available to him.” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why. And ponder this: If you are an ID supporter, then you are making exactly the same mistake as Bob does in the four examples above, using the same broken logic. Isn’t that a little embarrassing? It might be time to rethink your position.

And don’t forget the Rain Fairy.

I repeat: Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why. And ponder this: If you are an ID supporter, then you are making exactly the same mistake as Bob does in the four examples above, using the same broken logic. Isn’t that a little embarrassing? It might be time to rethink your position. keith s

Keith S, a bit of reading material in the meantime: Michael Denton "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" p.134 on nested hierarchies: ... if the pattern is to be ordered, one condition that must be met is that character traits once acquired during the course of evolution can never subsequently be lost or transformed in any radical sense and that the acquisition of new character traits must leave, therefore, previously acquired character traits essentially unchanged - to presume, in other words, that evolution is a conservative process such that each phylogenetic lineage gains a succession of what are essentially immutable character traits. Only if diagnostic character traits remain essentially immutable in all the members of the group they define is it possible to conceive of a hierarchic pattern emerging as the result of an evolutionary process... ... if it is true, as the Darwinian model of evolution implies, that all the character traits of living things were gained in the first place as a result of a gradual random evolutionary process, then why should they have remained subsequently so fundamentally immune to that same process of change, especially considering that many diagnostic character traits are only of dubious adaptive significance? It was precisely this fundamental constancy of the unique character traits, or homologies, of every defined taxon which led nineteenth-century biology to the theory of types. There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral or transitional forms can be permitted to survive... If any of the ancestors, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered. ... But surely no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the trunk and branches of the supposed tree, and left all remaining groups: mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises, vertebrates, molluscs, hymenoptera, fleas and so on, so isolated and related only in a strictly sisterly sense. In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed. There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process. If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity... lifepsy

William,

Your argument couldn’t be more circular here. You are assuming unguided evolution produced the evidence you refer to and then use that evidence as proof that unguided evolution generates ONHs.

No, I am using Theobald's observed cases of descent with modification to demonstrate that unguided evolution produces ONHs, and then pointing out that we also see ONHs in the unobserved cases. Coincidence? By the way, you're contradicting yourself if you claim that microevolution is guided. Earlier you told us that if a natural process was capable of explaining a phenomenon, then the natural explanation should be preferred over ID. Come on, William. Even the YECs acknowledge that Designer intervention is not required for microevolution. Read Theobald again:

Does Phylogenetic Inference Find Correct Trees? In order to establish their validity in reliably determining phylogenies, phylogenetic methods have been empirically tested in cases where the true phylogeny is known with certainty, since the true phylogeny was directly observed. Bacteriophage T7 was propagated and split sequentially in the presence of a mutagen, where each lineage was tracked. Out of 135,135 possible phylogenetic trees, the true tree was correctly determined by phylogenetic methods in a blind analysis. Five different phylogenetic methods were used independently, and each one chose the correct tree (Hillis et al.1992 ). In another study, 24 strains of mice were used in which the genealogical relationships were known. Cladistic analysis reproduced almost perfectly the known phylogeny of the 24 strains (Atchely and Fitch 1991). Bush et al. used phylogenetic analysis to retrospectively predict the correct evolutionary tree of human Influenza A virus 83% of the time for the flu seasons spanning 1983 to 1994. In 1998, researchers used 111 modern HIV-1 (AIDS virus) sequences in a phylogenetic analysis to predict the nucleotide sequence of the viral ancestor of which they were all descendants. The predicted ancestor sequence closely matched, with high statistical probability, an actual ancestral HIV sequence found in an HIV-1 seropositive African plasma sample collected and archived in the Belgian Congo in 1959 (Zhu et al.1998 ). In the past decade, phylogenetic analyses have played a significant role in successful convictions in several criminal court cases (Albert et al. 1994; Arnold et al. 1995; Birch et al. 2000; Blanchard et al. 1998; Goujon et al. 2000; Holmes et al. 1993; Machuca et al. 2001; Ou et al. 1992; Veenstra et al. 1995; Vogel 1997; Yirrell et al. 1997), and phylogenetic reconstructions have now been admitted as expert legal testimony in the United States (97-KK- 2220 State of Louisiana v. Richard J. Schmidt [PDF]). The legal test in the U. S. for admissibility of expert testimony is the Daubert guidelines (U. S. Supreme Court Case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587-89, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2794, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 1993). The Daubert guidelines state that a trial court should consider five factors in determining “whether the testimony’s underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid”: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within the relevant scientific community (quoted nearly verbatim). Phylogenetic analysis has officially met these legal requirements.

keith s

keith said:

I see you’ve quietly dropped your multiple lines of descent argument.

What makes you think I dropped it? Just because I didn't directly respond to your self-described "refutation"? Nothing of the sort. I've been patiently organizing another angle to the evisceration of your "argument": exposing the circularity of your "unguided evolution must produce a nested hierarchy" argument (your so-called "refutation", when all you have to support that contention is the very thing under debate), and also maneuvering you into a whole patchwork of catch-22's. William J Murray

Keith: Yes, because it threatens your faith in ID.

You must be joking. Honestly Keith, your argument is so riddled with holes that I no longer see the argument. Box

I'm invincible! You're a loony. Phinehas

Your argument couldn’t be more circular here. You are assuming unguided evolution produced the evidence you refer to and then use that evidence as proof that unguided evolution generates ONHs. Tell me, where in the data of that research were the processes observed rigorously quantified as “unguided”?

This has to be hammered in, again and again. And I say this as a regular ID critic. Science, evolutionary science, gives us processes. We get reproduction, we get selection, we get nested hierarchies, we get a number of things. What we don't get from the science is "unguided". If someone says "this process was unguided", alright - just provide us all with the scientific research showing as much. Where and how did scientists test any process for the guidance or control of a designer, whether God or gods or any other number of potential designers? None, you say? Then science is silent on the presence and activity of design in nature. Even evolutionary science. Yes, yes, I know. That goes against something they've heard again and again. But it turns out the mantra was an unfounded claim with basis in (as keith may say) emotional need, maybe philosophical or theological preference. But not science. nullasalus

F/N: I responded to a skeletal form of KS' argument here, appended it to my main response to his challenge here, and have gone on to address Theobald -- who makes the fact, fact FACT error coming out the starting gates -- etc here. KF PS: One problem I have with the debate mentality is too often it is about making the worse seem the better case by using fallacious but manipulative arguments. We ought not to be in debates but in reasoned dialogue on empirical evidence towards truth, a major aspect of science. PPS: let me clip the reply to the KS skeletal argument as outlined by VJT and evidently acceptable to KS:

>> 1. We observe objective nested hierarchies (ONH)>> Not quite, the homology/ resemblance implies relationship by descent principle even at gross level (eyes, wings etc) leads to “except where it doesn’t” and the diverse molecular trees undercut this claim. Diverse embryological development paths for obviously close creatures, also raise questions. Molecular structures and embryological development programs will be at least as important as gross ones. >>2. Unguided evolution explains ONH>> Begs the question of origin of FSCO/I on blind chance + mechanical necessity, in the teeth of strong evidence that the only observed source is design. So, we see a red herring and a question-begging assumption that plays to an indoctrinated gallery. Where origin/ source of FSCO/I is a bridge between OOL and origin of body plans requiring novel cell types, tissues, organs, arrangements and regulatory programs (esp. in embryological development). So, start at the root, OOL. No empirically grounded needle in haystack challenge plausible answer save design. How design is effected is secondary to that it credibly was effected. >>3. A designer explains ONH, but also a trillion alternatives.>> The word trillion is patently put in to rhetorically counter the fact that there are now — thanks to the Internet — trillions of cases in point of the observed source of FSCO/I, design; the only such observed source. That rhetorical device of distraction needs to be noted. The next issue is the second diversion, from design — intelligently directed configuration — detected on tested empirically reliable sign, to the rhetoric of the Designer is God and evocation of the train of thoughts, we fear, loathe and hate God and think of followers of God with contempt — Dawkins’ recent writings being exhibit A. Multiplied by the radical attempt to question-beggingly redefine science on a priori materialism, warping its inferences on the past of origins through demanding that we substitute for the longstanding inference on natural [= chance plus necessity] vs the ART-ificial [= intelligently configured] spoken of by Plato and Newton alike, to natural vs supernatural. Where the latter is caricatured and dismissed as beyond science. In fact, per empirically tested reliable signs, we routinely infer intelligently directed configuration on FSCO/I as sign — no one here thinks posts in this thread came about by lucky noise instead. The difference being exerted on cases of origins boils down to ideologically motivated selective hyperskepticism. Next, tree-patterns shaped by design constraints and purposes are a commonplace pattern of designs. That is the existence of a treelike pattern is empirically known to be a result of design. Linked, there is the problem of systematically missing transitionals, known since Darwin’s day. He hoped that future work would fill in but with 1/4 million species, millions of cases in museums and billions seen in the ground, the same pattern of distinct and separate forms without smooth incremental transitions remains. The idea of an organic incrementally branching pattern is projected unto the evidence not drawn out from it. But as those familiar with the problem of ideologically loaded misreading of situations backed by the fallacy of the closed mind know, undoing this error is very difficult. Psychologically, it normally takes breakdown, at personal or community level. Just ask former cultists and former Marxists willing to speak plainly. What is warranted, then, is just this: A designer explains ONH, but also a trillion alternatives And with that, the rest of the anti-design argument collapses. >>4. Both unguided evolution and a designer are capable of causing ONH.>> Therefore, there is no reason to use tree patterns (and note again the dynanmics challenges above) to try to distinguish the two. The argument collapses, pfft, like a stabbed tyre. >>Conclusion: Unguided evolution is a trillion times better at explaining ONH. >> This does not follow from the above chain of argument. As has been pointed out in several ways from several directions. It is time for KS et al to do some serious re-thinking.

kairosfocus

keith said:

Yes, because it threatens your faith in ID. You’re faced with an agonizing choice: follow the evidence where it leads, and acknowledge that ID is false; or abandon rationality, and acknowledge that you are an IDer for purely emotional reasons.

See, the more keith's argument is soundly refuted, the more he offers up these negative personal characterizations and self-serving narrative in lieu of rebuttal. William J Murray

Seriously, William? You think that antibiotic resistance and finch beak variation require Designer intervention? Wow. Even the YECs are generally smart enough to avoid that pitfall.

You are obfuscating. I didn't say it required designer intervention. My rocket ship analogy made that clear. I don't know of any ID theorists who would agree that any biological evolution at all occurs outside of what is a fundamentally designed system; that the system utilizes natural forces in a controlled, designed manner removes the from agreement that "unguided evolution" can even exist on its own, much less accomplish anything. So no, the premise that we know unguided evolution exists is false because it is the very thing in question at a fundamental level. We don't know that it exists.

But then you would be denying the obvious, which is that unguided evolution does produced objective nested hierarchies. Here’s Theobald:

Your argument couldn't be more circular here. You are assuming unguided evolution produced the evidence you refer to and then use that evidence as proof that unguided evolution generates ONHs. Tell me, where in the data of that research were the processes observed rigorously quantified as "unguided"? William J Murray

Box:

Keith’s “argument” is rotten to the core.

Yes, because it threatens your faith in ID. You're faced with an agonizing choice: follow the evidence where it leads, and acknowledge that ID is false; or abandon rationality, and acknowledge that you are an IDer for purely emotional reasons. keith s

William, If you think you've made a criticism that I haven't refuted, post it here. If I have already refuted it, I will point you to my refutation, in which case you can respond to the refutation. (Again, this is a debate. To win a debate, you need to respond to your opponent's arguments.) If I haven't already refuted it, I will provide a refutation -- or, in the extremely unlikely event that you have scored a hit, I will acknowledge that. keith s

Keith's "argument" is rotten to the core. Box

lifepsy:

Yet again, Keith S ignores a simple question posed to him in post #236, a follow-up from post #208 which he also ignored.

I'm not ignoring you, lifepsy. I'll get to your comment, but you'll need to be patient. There is only one of me, and I have a real life outside of UD. You can thank the moderators, by the way. Ever fearful of open discussion, they are silently banning ID critics. That means there are fewer critics available to answer your comments, which means you'll have to wait longer for a response. You might want to take advantage of the waiting time by cracking an evolution textbook. :-) keith s

We have explained why keith s' arguments fail. He thinks ignoring them makes them go away. Joe

keith said:

I’ve refuted your criticisms. If you disagree, then explain why my refutations fail.

I have done and am doing exactly that. You insisting that this is not the case doesn't make it any less true. You insisting that you have refuted the criticisms doesn't make that true, either. William J Murray

keith s you have no argument that is valid. bornagain77

Keith said:

Sure I have. There are 10^38 possible trees of the 30 major taxa, which means there are 10^38 possible ways for one tree (derived from morphology, say) to mismatch another tree (derived from molecular data, say).

Are you saying that it is impossible for natural forces to generate a mismatched set of trees? William J Murray

WJM:

I and others have already shown several reasons why you argument is both invalid logically and trivial even if we assume the conclusion. Those reasons still stand.

You can repeat that as many times as you want, putting it in bold each time, but that will not magically turn it into truth. I've refuted your criticisms. If you disagree, then explain why my refutations fail. It's called debate, and though I know you aren't used to having debates at UD, you are having one now. The ball's in your court. keith s

Also seeing that unguided evolution cannot account for any taxa that means it is useless Joe

Yet again, Keith S ignores a simple question posed to him in post #236, a follow-up from post #208 which he also ignored. Additionally, Keith S' "coin/dice" analogy is debunked in post #237, so of course he has to ignore that, too. Keith S must deny the simple fact that "unguided evolution" can potentially produce unrecognizable/unidentifiable nested hierarchies, whether or not they are objective in principle. This shatters his entire argument, which is why he must ignore it. Joe has reminded him of this in post #252 and elsewhere, which Keith S must also ignore of course. Actually, Keith S is conspicuously responding to everything BUT this point so I am forced to take his deafening silence as a concession. lifepsy

You think that the Designer was limited by natural forces?

Every designer we know of is limited by natural forces in the manner they instantiate those designs.

You might want to discuss that assumption with your fellow IDers, who may not be quite so enthusiastic about it as you are.

How they feel about my argument has no bearing on its validity.

Besides the conflict with your fellow IDers, you have another problem: what is the basis for your assumption about the limitations of the Designer? How do you know what the Designer can and cannot do? Be specific.

Nice attempt at shifting the burden. That's not my cross to bear - you are the one that claimed in your argument that the designer had trillions of options available without explaining or supporting that assertion. I never claimed to know what the designer can and cannot do - you did. You claimed the designer had "trillions of options". Can you back that claim up? However, even though it is not my assertion to back up (because all I did was question your assertion), the basis for an assumption that the designer(s) in question is limited to instantiating their designs in accordance with natural forces is the fact that all designers we know of are likewise limited. Humans must work with natural laws and forces - we cannot violate or suspend them - when we make designs intended to be physically instantiated in the physical world. William J Murray

Dr Denton refutes VJT. He has those two to worry about before getting to me. :razz: Joe

You’ve made absolutely no case for assuming that a designer had “trillions of possibilities” available.

Sure I have. There are 10^38 possible trees of the 30 major taxa, which means there are 10^38 possible ways for one tree (derived from morphology, say) to mismatch another tree (derived from molecular data, say). What's hilarious is that IDers are usually the ones saying "Dont't tell us what the Designer could or couldn't do!" When they're backed into a corner, that principle goes out the window, and you're suddenly willing to impose all kinds of limitations on your Designer. You're free to make additional assumptions about the Designer, but you have to justify them. As I said to Phinehas:

To defeat my argument and undo the trillions-to-one advantage of unguided evolution, all you have to do is this: find a good reason for your Designer to produce objected nested hierarchies, and show that your assumption is trillions of times more plausible than the alternative. That’s all. :-) Good luck, especially considering that the designers we know of — humans, again — usually don’t produce objective nested hierarchies. (Don’t forget that armies are nested hierarchies, but not objective nested hierarchies.) So you need to come up with something that shows that the Designer has to, or wants to, or happens to produce ONHs, and that this is trillions of times more plausible than the Designer producing any of the alternatives, which are trillions of times more numerous.

keith s

Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism — transformed cladism rocks https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/taxonomic-nested-hierarchies-dont-support-darwinism/ Silver Asiatic

Phylogenetic analysis beyond species level is full of conflicting signals,,, Moreover, beyond the species level, Darwinists 'massage' the data so as to have it fit into their desired conclusion of common descent, and even then it still gives conflicting signals: Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - February 27, 2014 Excerpt: there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.”,,, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”,,, “data are routinely filtered in order to satisfy stringent criteria so as to eliminate the possibility of incongruence.”,,, he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional tree.” It is, another evolutionist admitted, “a very serious incongruence.” “the more molecular data is analysed, the more difficult it is to interpret straightforwardly the evolutionary histories of those molecules.” And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. As Dawkins explained, gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. And then Dawkins chastises anyone who “could possibly doubt the fact of evolution.” Unfortunately this sentiment is typical. Evolutionists have no credibility. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/02/richard-dawkins-how-could-anyone.html Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush - May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.” The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,, ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this? http://crev.info/2013/05/darwins-tree-of-life-is-a-tangled-bramble-bush/ That Yeast Study is a Good Example of How Evolutionary Theory Works - Cornelius Hunter - June 2013 Excerpt:,,, The evolutionists tried to fix the problem with all kinds of strategies. They removed parts of genes from the analysis, they removed a few genes that might have been outliers, they removed a few of the yeast species, they restricted the analysis to certain genes that agreed on parts of the evolutionary tree, they restricted the analysis to only those genes thought to be slowly evolving, and they tried restricting the gene comparisons to only certain parts of the gene. These various strategies each have their own rationale. That rationale may be dubious, but at least there is some underlying reasoning. Yet none of these strategies worked. In fact they sometimes exacerbated the incongruence problem. What the evolutionists finally had to do, simply put, was to select the subset of the genes or of the problem that gave the right evolutionary answer. They described those genes as having “strong phylogenetic signal.” And how do we know that these genes have strong phylogenetic signal. Because they give the right answer. This is an example of a classic tendency in science known as confirmation bias.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/that-yeast-study-is-good-example-of-how.html bornagain77

We know that unguided evolution exists.

And we know that it is worse than impotent. It actually harms. Joe

keith said:

It’s amusing to see WJM scrambling to defuse an argument that he has dismissed as “inane” and “trivial”.

Except that's not what's going on. I and others have already shown several reasons why you argument is both invalid logically and trivial even if we assume the conclusion. Those reasons still stand. However, you continue reiterating the patently false claim that your argument has not been addressed and debunked, and in the comments above you challenge me to specifically addressed your numerical list - which I have, and now you chastise me for choosing to take up this specific challenge and yet again demonstrate how your argument is invalid. Now, after I've done as you ask and respond to that specific numbered list (as well as bring up further reasons and variant explanatory perspectives as to why your argument is invalid), you respond with a continuation of your internal narrative by characterizing my responses to your continued challenges and reiterated denials as "scrambling" and "desperate".

It’s time to drop the false bravado, UDers. This argument has you spooked, and for good reason. The argument shows that it is impossible to be a rational IDer. You either choose rationality, or you choose ID.

So, after I specifically respond to you request and offer yet another reason why your "argument" is invalid, you resort to the above - nothing but a self-aggrandizing, negative characterizatons of the mindset and motives of those who are engaged in the argument with you.

You desperately need to find a refutation.

No, we're simply continuing to refute your argument and your ongoing, self-serving narrative. I notice that you have not answered the challenge of where you came up with the "trillions" of variations claim about options open to the designer, or other refutations to various aspects of your argument. William J Murray

And I missed the part where VJT modeled unguided evolution producing objective nested hierarchies. Joe

finch beak variation is designed Darwin's Finches Show Rule-Constrained Variation in Beak Shape - June 10, 2014 Excerpt: A simple yet powerful mathematical rule controls beak development, Harvard scientists find, while simultaneously preventing beaks from evolving into something else.,,, We find in Darwin's finches (and all songbirds) an internal system, controlled by a non-random developmental process. It is flexible enough to allow for variation, but powerful enough to constrain the beak to its basic form (a conical shape modulated by scaling and shear) so that the rest of the bird's structures are not negatively affected. Beak development is controlled by a decay process that must operate at a particular rate. It's all very precise, so much so that it could be modeled mathematically.,,, The very birds that have long been used as iconic examples of natural selection become, on closer examination, paragons of intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/darwins_finches086581.html bornagain77

Darwin refutes what VJT wrote, keith s. Joe

actually antibiotic resistance is 'hard wired' into bacteria: Scientists unlock a 'microbial Pompeii' - February 23, 2014 Excerpt: "...The researchers discovered that the ancient human oral microbiome already contained the basic genetic machinery for antibiotic resistance more than eight centuries before the invention of the first therapeutic antibiotics in the 1940s..." http://phys.org/news/2014-02-scientists-microbial-pompeii.html A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution - September 2011 Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.” http://crev.info/content/110904-a_tale_of_two_falsifications_of_evolution (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012 Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes. http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183# bornagain77

Formatting error. This is from WJM:

it only means that the designer of the rocket and it’s mission goal necessarily had to accommodate inertia and gravity in their design specifications.

This is from me:

You think that God the Designer was limited by natural forces? You might want to discuss that assumption with your fellow IDers, who may not be quite so enthusiastic about it as you are. Besides the conflict with your fellow IDers, you have another problem: what is the basis for your assumption about the limitations of the Designer? How do you know what the Designer can and cannot do? Be specific.

keith s

keiths:

3. We know that unguided evolution exists. Even the most rabid IDer/YEC will admit that antibiotic resistance can evolve, though there are people who actually believe that natural selection is a tautology, including UD President Barry Arrington, believe it or not.

William J Murray:

Admitting that it can evolve is not the same as admitting that such evolution is essentially unguided. We do not know that unguided evolution exists.

Seriously, William? You think that antibiotic resistance and finch beak variation require Designer intervention? Wow. Even the YECs are generally smart enough to avoid that pitfall.

If one admits that “unguided inertia and gravity” can account for the path of an object through space, that doesn’t mean the path itself is essentially unguided;

Once you put an object on a trajectory through space, it will remain on that trajectory unless you apply an additional force. Evolution isn't like that. I hope that's obvious. If not, let me know, and I'll elaborate.

it only means that the designer of the rocket and it’s mission goal necessarily had to accommodate inertia and gravity in their design specifications. You think that God the Designer was limited by natural forces? You might want to discuss that assumption with your fellow IDers, who may not be quite so enthusiastic about it as you are. Besides the conflict with your fellow IDers, you have another problem: what is the basis for your assumption about the limitations of the Designer? How do you know what the Designer can and cannot do? Be specific. keiths:

4. We don’t know that the putative designer exists, so ID is already behind in the race.

WJM:

This is a semantic dodge. We know that designers exist,

It isn't enough to know that designers exist. For ID to work, a designer has to exist at the right time and with the right capabilities. In my argument, I grant that to you without asking for proof. Yet you claim that ID is being treated unfairly.

...while we do not know that unguided evolution exists,

So you think that the Designer is carefully designing each new strain of the flu virus? And doing it in a way that produces an ONH? LOL.

One can also say that we don’t know that “the” natural forces necessary to generate evolution or the ONH exists, if we were going to equally distribute our semantic equivocations.

But then you would be denying the obvious, which is that unguided evolution does produced objective nested hierarchies. Here's Theobald:

Does Phylogenetic Inference Find Correct Trees? In order to establish their validity in reliably determining phylogenies, phylogenetic methods have been empirically tested in cases where the true phylogeny is known with certainty, since the true phylogeny was directly observed. Bacteriophage T7 was propagated and split sequentially in the presence of a mutagen, where each lineage was tracked. Out of 135,135 possible phylogenetic trees, the true tree was correctly determined by phylogenetic methods in a blind analysis. Five different phylogenetic methods were used independently, and each one chose the correct tree (Hillis et al.1992 ). In another study, 24 strains of mice were used in which the genealogical relationships were known. Cladistic analysis reproduced almost perfectly the known phylogeny of the 24 strains (Atchely and Fitch 1991). Bush et al. used phylogenetic analysis to retrospectively predict the correct evolutionary tree of human Influenza A virus 83% of the time for the flu seasons spanning 1983 to 1994. In 1998, researchers used 111 modern HIV-1 (AIDS virus) sequences in a phylogenetic analysis to predict the nucleotide sequence of the viral ancestor of which they were all descendants. The predicted ancestor sequence closely matched, with high statistical probability, an actual ancestral HIV sequence found in an HIV-1 seropositive African plasma sample collected and archived in the Belgian Congo in 1959 (Zhu et al.1998 ). In the past decade, phylogenetic analyses have played a significant role in successful convictions in several criminal court cases (Albert et al. 1994; Arnold et al. 1995; Birch et al. 2000; Blanchard et al. 1998; Goujon et al. 2000; Holmes et al. 1993; Machuca et al. 2001; Ou et al. 1992; Veenstra et al. 1995; Vogel 1997; Yirrell et al. 1997), and phylogenetic reconstructions have now been admitted as expert legal testimony in the United States (97-KK- 2220 State of Louisiana v. Richard J. Schmidt [PDF]). The legal test in the U. S. for admissibility of expert testimony is the Daubert guidelines (U. S. Supreme Court Case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587-89, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2794, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 1993). The Daubert guidelines state that a trial court should consider five factors in determining "whether the testimony's underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid": (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within the relevant scientific community (quoted nearly verbatim). Phylogenetic analysis has officially met these legal requirements.

So please, no more nonsensical claims from any of you about how objective nested hierarchies are actually subjective.

keith s

William, I see you've quietly dropped your multiple lines of descent argument. That's wise, since I refuted it. But someone needs to get the word out to kairosfocus, who is still flogging it in an "FYI-FTR" post (with comments closed, naturally). keith s

Joe,

Can someone help keith s out and model unguided evolution producing objective nested hierarchies?

I look forward to seeing you explain to vjtorley that you think he's an idiot for writing this:

What Darwinian evolution explains spectacularly well about life is the striking fact that organisms can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies. As we saw above, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains, which automatically generate nested hierarchies in replicating systems that branch. The process of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, need not generate organisms that can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies: all we can say is that it might.

Be gentle; he might be intimidated by your towering intellect. keith s

Do you know why keith's argument may haz us spooked? It is the worst type of zombie, it just refuses to die... :razz: Joe

Can someone help keith s out and model unguided evolution producing objective nested hierarchies? He has been challenged to do so to support his claims but instead he just keeps repeating the claims that have been refuted. I bet he is waving his hand like a Jedi as he repeats those oft-refuted claims. :razz: It ain't working, keith s. Joe

keith s:

Good luck, especially considering that the designers we know of — humans, again — usually don’t produce objective nested hierarchies.

And we know that unguided and gradual evolution cannot produce objective nested hierarchies. However an intelligent designer would not reinvent the wheel for every organism. A common design was the original explanation for the nested hierarchy and it still stands. Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14 Objective nested hierarchies require groups to be distinguished. Joe

keith s- Grow up. Unguided evolution can't even get beyond populations of prokaryotes given populations of prokaryotes to start with. Also Darwin refuted your argument back in 1859. Denton did it in 1985. Your argument and your willful ignorance just show how desperate you have become. Thank you Joe

It's amusing to see WJM scrambling to defuse an argument that he has dismissed as "inane" and "trivial". It's time to drop the false bravado, UDers. This argument has you spooked, and for good reason. The argument shows that it is impossible to be a rational IDer. You either choose rationality, or you choose ID. You desperately need to find a refutation. keith s

Phinehas, You misattributed that quote to me. It's from Mung:

Human armies are the subjective creations of multiple human designers. heck, there are trillions of possible army hierarchies. How could any one of them be objective?

You responded:

OK, but isn’t it interesting that, generally, armies are organized very similarly or even the same? Given (what passes for) the logic in keiths’ argument, various armies that are organized similarly when there are trillions of possible choices make design highly improbable as an explanation for their origin.

No, because in the case of armies, we know who the designers are -- humans. We know what their objective is -- to create effective fighting forces. We know that humans tend to copy designs rather than creating their own from scratch. And so on. We don't know any of these things about your purported Designer. To defeat my argument and undo the trillions-to-one advantage of unguided evolution, all you have to do is this: find a good reason for your Designer to produce objected nested hierarchies, and show that your assumption is trillions of times more plausible than the alternative. That's all. :-) Good luck, especially considering that the designers we know of -- humans, again -- usually don't produce objective nested hierarchies. (Don't forget that armies are nested hierarchies, but not objective nested hierarchies.) So you need to come up with something that shows that the Designer has to, or wants to, or happens to produce ONHs, and that this is trillions of times more plausible than the Designer producing any of the alternatives, which are trillions of times more numerous. P.S. Vincent Torley tried to solve the problem last year by introducing what he called the "Economy of Effort principle". That doesn't work, unfortunately, for reasons I will expand upon in Vincent's new thread. keith s

If, as keith's argument apparently assumes, natural forces are **restricted** to generating biological systems as evolutionary in nature and conforming to Markovian ONH progressions, why (and perhaps more importantly, how) would a designer work around these apparently inherent natural limitations and tendencies in order to generate **something else**? It's like keith expects a designer to defy gravity, inertia and other natural forces and tendencies in order to get a rocket to the moon and back, just because keith imagines that a designer would have trillions of options available that didn't need to obey such natural laws and tendencies. William J Murray

Keith's argues:

There are many choices available to a Designer who guides evolution. Only a tiny fraction of them lead to a inferable, objective nested hierarchy.

How does Keith come to this conclusion about "a Designer"? It is nothing but a bald, unsupported assumption. Keiths continues:

The Designer would have to restrict himself to gradual changes and predominantly vertical inheritance of features in order to leave behind evidence of the kind we see.

Or, perhaps the nature of what the Designer is trying to accomplish restricts the design parameters and engineering opportunities just like designing a functional rocket-ship to go to the moon and back with human passengers is constrained by the many parameters involved in such an undertaking. Keith continues:

In other words, our ‘common descent IDers’ face a dilemma like the one faced by the creationists. They can force guided evolution to match the evidence, but only by making a completely arbitrary assumption about the behavior of the Designer.

It is an equally arbitrary assumption that any such designer had "trillions" of other viable design methodology/engineering opportunity configurations open in pursuit of the goal (if we take the "goal" to be what we observer wrt biology/ecology as it is today).

They must stipulate, for no particular reason, that the Designer restricts himself to a tiny subset of the available options, and that this subset just happens to be the subset that creates a recoverable, objective, nested hierarchy of the kind that is predicted by unguided evolution.

This is where keiths makes his biggest error. He has conflated the assumption that natural forces can create a nested hierarchy with an assumption that it did, instead of any other configuration available to natural forces. Keiths makes no argument that natural forces are incapable of making anything other than a nested-hierarchical biological system.

Unguided evolution doesn’t require any such arbitrary assumptions.

Well, in the first place we have no idea what "unguided" evolution would or wouldn't produce since we have no case of it other than the subject under debate. What we do know is what a Markovian evolutionary progression would look like, and you assume that actual, real-world unguided evolution would conform to the math. Outside of the subject under debate, natural processes are not known to produce Markovian ONH's. Only design is known to produce ONH's outside of the subject under debate. If we assume that both natural forces and design created an evolutionary system, how would a designer-participatory evolutionary system differ from one governed by Markov processes? That depends on how one defines "evolutionary system". Obviously if we assume natural forces generated an evolutionary system like we observe today, we must assume the same for the designer - that they created one like we see today. This gains no value for keith. Let's assume that IF natural forces generate an evolutionary system, it **must** look like the system we observe (assuming it conforms to Markov predictions, the platypus notwithstanding); the question is, if a designer designs a system of biological evolution, is it possible for a designed biological system of evolution to defy Markovian configuration? Analogy: IF we assume natural forces can build a vehicle that can take men to the moon and back, can the vehicle nature builds and the vehicle that a designer builds be substantively different wrt various necessary constraints and capacities defined by the nature of the mission itself? For example, if a designer generated an organism outside of the hierarchy, would that comport with the assumption that the designer created an evolutionary biological system? How is the nonconformist organism "evolutionary"? Similarly, if natural forces generated a outsider organism, how would that organism conform to an "evolutionary" configuration that is assumed to have been created? Neither of those outsider organisms would be part of the assumed evolutionary system, so claiming that the designer can make an organism that is not part of the evolutionary system is equitable to claiming that natural forces can do the same. If we offer equal assumptions, then, how would we expect a designer evolutionary system to differ from a natural one, if Markovian progression is indeed a necessary definitional aspect of biological evolution? (Meaning, if there is no Markovian progression into nested hierarchies, it wouldn't be considered an "evolutionary" system in the first place). As Joe argues, couldn't natural evolution produce a completely smooth gradient of objective identifiers instead of a nested hierarchy that conforms to Markovian progression? Couldn't a designer make a smooth evolutionary system? Isn't that what was originally expected, as Joe points out?

And because unguided evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of the kind we actually observe in nature, out of the trillions of alternatives available to a Designer who guides evolution, it is literally trillions of times better than ID at explaining the evidence.

Where have you made the case that there are literally trillions of alternatives available under a designed evolutionary system? Where have you made the case that any biological system considered an "evolutionary" biological system can be logically separated from a Markovian ONH? How would a designer make an evolutionary system that that would be acceptably defined as an evolutionary system (with equitable assumptions on the other side of the argument) without it being a Markovian ONH? William J Murray

That is, my post @242 should have been addressed to Mung. Also, in an attempt to recover the signal to noise ratio, this is exceptionally well-said.

WJM: If one admits that “unguided inertia and gravity” can account for the path of an object through space, that doesn’t mean the path itself is essentially unguided; it only means that the designer of the rocket and it’s mission goal necessarily had to accommodate inertia and gravity in their design specifications. That doesn’t make natural forces the better explanation for the rocket or the path the rocket is taking.

And this as well:

And what we certainly cannot know is – your implicit claim – that the designer is completely indifferent about the ordering of life and that he based his decision on the role of a die.

In reading Theobald's potential falsification criteria, it struck me that there were a lot of assumptions about whether, for instance, birds with mammary glands or hair would be a workable or desirable design in the first place. We really just don't know this. Phinehas

repost: I would like to point out, once again, that Darwin's tree of life is not supported by either the fossil record or genetic evidence. In other words, the empirical evidence itself, when taken at face value, away from all the rhetoric and 'statistical analysis', does not support Universal Common Descent. First and foremost, as Dr. Wells points out in this following video,,,

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

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

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

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

The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from 'Darwin's Doubt' (Disparity preceding Diversity) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html

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

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

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

Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” TS Kemp - Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians etc.. etc.. etc..

Thus, contrary to the keith s's claim that the fossil record supports Universal Common Descent as is predicted by Darwin's theory 'trillions of times better' than any theory of Intelligent Design, the fact of the matter is that the fossil evidence itself reveals keith s's claim to be bogus! As well, the genetic evidence offers no support for keith s's claim for Universal Common Descent as it is predicted by Darwin's theory: Casey Luskin did an overview of the genetic evidence here:

Logged Out – Scientists Can’t Find Darwin’s “Tree of Life” Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin – Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that “different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s].”6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that “the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be.”8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled “Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life.”9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that “the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” but “today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” According to the article, “many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.”,,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?” ,,, “battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life,” leaving readers with a stark assessment: “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”10,,, A 2012 paper noted that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception,” since “incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php etc.. etc..

Thus, despite keith s's 'black knight' impersonation, (which is quite good actually), when the evidence itself is looked at clearly, without trying to force the fossil or genetic evidence into any artificial 'statistical' model, (i.e. 'imaginary' model), the empirical evidence itself testifies very strongly against keith s's bogus claims for UCD as predicted by Darwin's theory. bornagain77

The previous post should have been addressed to Mung. Phinehas

Keith, What it boils down to is this: you state that there are trillions of options available for a designer and that he/she/it could have chosen either one, but we simply have no way of knowing. There is no grounding for your claim. We do not know if a designer is capable of producing trillions of different orderings of life - for all we know the designer's capability is limited to only one option. But even if there are trillions of options available, we have no way of knowing if there are compelling reasons - any reasons - for the designer to choose for ONH. That is the problem with free agents ... And what we certainly cannot know is - your implicit claim - that the designer is completely indifferent about the ordering of life and that he based his decision on the role of a die. Box

keiths:

Human armies are the subjective creations of multiple human designers. heck, there are trillions of possible army hierarchies. How could any one of them be objective?

OK, but isn't it interesting that, generally, armies are organized very similarly or even the same? Given (what passes for) the logic in keiths' argument, various armies that are organized similarly when there are trillions of possible choices make design highly improbable as an explanation for their origin. Maybe "military intelligence" really is an oxymoron? Phinehas

Keith said:

If you disagree, tell me which of my numbered steps is unfair, and explain why.

keiths:

3. We know that unguided evolution exists. Even the most rabid IDer/YEC will admit that antibiotic resistance can evolve, though there are people who actually believe that natural selection is a tautology, including UD President Barry Arrington, believe it or not.

Admitting that it can evolve is not the same as admitting that such evolution is essentially unguided. We do not know that unguided evolution exists. If one admits that "unguided inertia and gravity" can account for the path of an object through space, that doesn't mean the path itself is essentially unguided; it only means that the designer of the rocket and it's mission goal necessarily had to accommodate inertia and gravity in their design specifications. That doesn't make natural forces the better explanation for the rocket or the path the rocket is taking.

4. We don’t know that the putative designer exists, so ID is already behind in the race.

This is a semantic dodge. We know that designers exist, while we do not know that unguided evolution exists, and we do not know that natural forces are up to the task of creating an evolutionary system, while we do know that designers can create evolutionary systems. One can also say that we don't know that "the" natural forces necessary to generate evolution or the ONH exists, if we were going to equally distribute our semantic equivocations.

12. If we take that approach and assume, temporarily and for the sake of argument alone, that the designer is responsible for the diversity of life, we can see that ID does does not predict an objective nested hierarchy out of the trillions of possibilities.

You've made absolutely no case for assuming that a designer had "trillions of possibilities" available. This is a blatant, additional assumption you've generated on the ID side of the ledger which necessitates your conclusion (ignoring the other problems with your conclusion). William J Murray

keiths:

Pretty embarrassing to be unable to rebut a “trivial” argument, isn’t it?

Actually, I think it might be more embarrassing to bother rebutting an argument that reaches trivial conclusions. It is certainly more embarrassing to offer up an argument that reaches trivial conclusions and then label it a "bomb." But the pinnacle of embarrassment (for those of us who are capable of such a thing) would be in offering up a flawed argument that reaches trivial conclusions and then parroting the Black Knight when confronted with this reality. Phinehas

[ more on free agents and calculating probabilities ...] How many functions does your mobile phone have besides taking a picture? - 99 Are you going to use your mobile phone? - Yes, right now. The chance is exactly 1% that you will take a picture. - No, the chance is 100% because I have chosen to do so. **[click]** Box

Keith,

Keith: 1. A coin with ONH stamped on both sides. 2. A trillion-sided die with ONH engraved on one and only one side. [ conclusion: 1 is a trillion times better explanation for ONH ]

Thank you for a reply elucidating your reasoning. I agree with the conclusion in the example above. It is however not an apt comparison to your original argument:

1. Unguided evolution explains ONH. 2. A designer explains ONH, but also a trillion of alternatives. [ conclusion: unguided evolution is a trillion times better as an explanation for ONH.]

In your coin example the choice of a designer is compared to the blind random process of a die roll. That is a category mistake. The choice of a free agent cannot be explained by calculating probabilities, because it is not a blind process. In my digital camera example, the choice of a free agents plays a part and we immediately observe that calculating probabilities has become pointless and out of place.

1. a digital camera explains a picture 2. a mobile phone explains a picture, but also 100 other things. [conclusion: a digital camera is a 100 times better at explaining a picture ].

Here the conclusion is absurd. Why? Because the choice of free agents is involved. What is the choice of free agents in my example? Mobile phones are frequently chosen by free agents in order to make pictures. This choice by free agents renders calculating probabilities ("100 times better") absurd, pointless and out of place. [ Conclusion: a choice by a free agent should not be equated with a blind process.] Box

Keith S, 231

Suppose you have two objects: 1. A coin with ONH stamped on both sides. 2. A trillion-sided die with ONH engraved on one and only one side.

Your premise is entirely flawed, as "unguided evolution" could also "explain" a trillion variations where the objective nested hierarchy is irrecoverable via available character trait data, but still assumed to exist in principle, only masked by factors that have already been explained to you. Like has already been pointed out, it would actually look more like "unguided evolution" if Life were smeared with such fine multi-directional gradations that identifying the actual objective nested hierarchy was impossible. Therefore your "evolution coin" is actually another trillion sided die. Guess this is another post you will have to ignore. lifepsy

keith s, 212 What a surprise, completely ignored my arguments again. Let me break it down more simply for you in the form of question. Does the production of an objective nested hierarchy via unguided evolution necessitate that this objective nested hierarchy will become identifiable? Or could the signal of common descent via unguided evolution potentially become masked to the extent that all or major portions of the objective nested hierarchy become unidentifiable? If you respond by saying the ONH can never be made unidentifiable, then you're already refuted. So I predict you will simply ignore this like you did my last post, and blather on as usual. At least Enkidu had the manners to concede with silence. lifepsy

keith s- both you and Theobald are ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. One moron depending on another, while amusing, is not a good place to be. Joe

Rich is such a deluded turd that he thinks I am a YEC because I doubt the validity of a 4.5x billion year old earth. Rich couldn't be any more of a deluded coward if his life depended on it. Joe

Phinehas,

Someone pointed out on a different thread that the usual structure of armies is that of an objective nested hierarchy. Is this true or not?

An army is a nested hierarchy, but not an objective nested hierarchy. To understand the difference between nested hierarchies and objective nested hierarchies, read this section of Theobald. Kairosfocus should read it too, since he still doesn't understand the difference. keith s

Andre,

You don’t even have an argument, all you have is a word salad…….

Now that's funny. keith s

Box, It's astonishing to me that you still don't get this, but let me try once more. Suppose you have two objects: 1. A coin with ONH stamped on both sides. 2. A trillion-sided die with ONH engraved on one and only one side. A friend of yours takes both objects into another room, out of your sight. She randomly picks one of the two objects and flips it. "I randomly picked one of the objects and flipped it, and it landed with ONH up," she shouts to you. Your job is to guess which of the objects she flipped -- the coin with ONH on both sides, or the trillion-sided die with ONH on only one side. If you can't figure out the best answer, I'm afraid there's little hope that you will ever understand my argument. keith s

Astroman Addressed to you in error, was meant for Enkidu, apologies! Andre

Atroman Apologies Parkour..... and it shows just how absolutely "crappy" the design of the spine is! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX7QNWEGcNI Andre

Atavism = deformities! http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/atavism1.htm Enkidu, you need to do better than that! Andre

Keith S You don't even have an argument, all you have is a word salad....... Andre

Enkidu Atavistic legs does not prove a common ancestor.......... the busting of the myth done by a creationist. http://creation.com/the-strange-tale-of-the-leg-on-the-whale Andre

William J Murray:

It’s just bizarre to me that you keep insisting (and apparently believing) that your argument is significant when, even if we stipulate your argument is 100% correct and it’s conclusion 100% valid, it is utterly trivial in nature because it assumes arguendo everything which ID theory challenges.

And it's bizarre to me that you can't see, or refuse to see, that I am treating both ID and unguided evolution fairly. If you disagree, tell me which of my numbered steps is unfair, and explain why. You keep dodging the question. Be brave and answer it this time.

I mean, the ID-side equivalent of your argument (as bad as it is) would be that if we assume natural forces could create trillions of alternatives to a nested hierarchy, and we assume that an intelligent designer could only have produced a nested hierarchy, then by your reasoning design would be a better explanation by a factor of trillions.

No, because gradual unguided evolution with primarily vertical inheritance will produce an objective nested hierarchy. It isn't an assumption. Vjtorley understands this even if you don't:

I’d now like to discuss the recent article by KeithS, over at The Skeptical Zone. His key point is a very simple one. What Darwinian evolution explains spectacularly well about life is the striking fact that organisms can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies. As we saw above, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains, which automatically generate nested hierarchies in replicating systems that branch. The process of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, need not generate organisms that can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies: all we can say is that it might.

You evidently think vjtorley is an idiot for saying that, but why? His statement makes perfect sense.

kf, Thinking of them as mindless automatons, even though I treat them as conscious entities, grants me comfort and equanimity in the face of their tireless, nonsensical output. Otherwise, it’s just too profoundly sad and troubling to subject myself to.

William, What's troubling to you is the fact that you can't rebut my argument, despite insisting that it's "inane" and "trivial". Pretty embarrassing to be unable to rebut a "trivial" argument, isn't it? keith s

Dr. McIntosh's contention that 'non-material information' must be constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium has been borne out empirically. i.e. It is now found that 'non-local', beyond space-time matter-energy, Quantum entanglement/information 'holds' DNA (and proteins) together: Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ 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 information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism: Verse and Music: John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Redeemed – Big Daddy Weave http://myktis.com/songs/redeemed/ bornagain77

Moreover, as if the princess and the pea paradox 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 life, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is now known to not even be on the right playing field in the first place: “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 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 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://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 And remember, Darwinian evolution has yet to explain a single gene/protein 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. Moreover, Dr. Andy C. McIntosh, who is the Professor of Thermodynamics Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy), has written a peer-reviewed paper in which he holds that it is 'non-material information' which is constraining the local thermodynamics of a cell to be in such a extremely high non-equilibrium state: 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) http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 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 bornagain77

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 in regards to random mutation, 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 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, to the extent it does do anything, 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. Here is a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Sanford on the subject: “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 bornagain77

Well Astroman, thanks for the ad hominem, I'm sure you would also probably spit on me if you could.,,, but in regards to the actual merit of my claims, I have already cited several references in regards to claim number 1, i.e. 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis, and I notice that you have not even attempted to list the mathematical equation for Darwinism that we can test against,, (since there is in fact no testable, rigid, equation for you to list that would make Darwinism a proper scientific theory), but in regards to my other claims,,,, 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis” ,,let's see how they hold up and if you can, rather than the usual Darwinian vitriol, give a substantive response to the claims? 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 Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ “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 An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 Dear Professors Miller and Myers, Talk is cheap. Let's see your numbers. In your recent post on and earlier reviews of my book The Edge of Evolution you toss out a lot of words, but no calculations. You downplay FRS Nicholas White's straightforward estimate that -- considering the number of cells per malaria patient (a trillion), times the number of ill people over the years (billions), divided by the number of independent events (fewer than ten) -- the development of chloroquine-resistance in malaria is an event of probability about 1 in 10^20 malaria-cell replications. Okay, if you don't like that, what's your estimate? Let's see your numbers.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html bornagain77

Kairosfocus:

(d) All along, it is commonly known that designers, if they wish to can and do use designs that fall into tree pattern hierarchies, so this issue would be inherently incapable of distinguishing design from non-design on basic inductive reasoning, where one goes for that which makes a difference between two hypotheses.

It sounds to me like you are saying automobile designs from human designers started off as slow horseless carriages, which later developed into the Chevy and Ford lineages that in time will be self-driving and perhaps qualify as (machine) intelligence. A tremendous amount of combined intelligence is required to develop (and maintain) modern automobile technology. And living things are much more complex than that. Without intelligence the creating of even a simple antique automobile would be like a tornado passing through an iron ore deposit and tar pit self-assembling an all gassed up and ready to go Model-T (or design of its own that works even better). One small step at a time would have tornado's making gears, wheels, motors, that are swept up again to fit together different ways until something works, then tornadoes make more of that. Cell organelles on their own self-assemble, but development into a human such as ourselves requires complex social cells together developing into complex self-sustaining multicellular colonies with intelligence of their own from a brain (connected to many sensors) to control muscle movement. It makes more sense that there is also a mind boggling amount of intelligence (in addition to our brain) required for our lineage to have developed into us. Critics generally assume that a "designer" intelligence must be a figment of religious imagination. Yet I'm finding plenty of scientific evidence to conclude that our cell nuclei contains a (genetic) brain (as complex as the one on our shoulders) surrounded by a cell layer that has a brain in it for moment to moment awareness needed to be say a neuron that has to properly migrate and differentiate then learn to wire and fire the right way with others in their cellular community. In this case our "designer" is a trinity where consciousness part is from the behavior of matter level, with two intelligence levels on top of that to create (and 24/7 be in) us. Our human body only lasts so long, but the rest stay going through time by having offspring that have offspring and so on. Even where one does not have offspring of their own the Designer's systematics has us working in parallel, which happens by the same couple having more than one offspring each with their own human intelligence and consciousness. From that perspective all do not need to reproduce, what matters is to peacefully work together to stay going through time or the part of the Designer that is at work on planet Earth will suffer a loss but not be gone (it's a big big universe, as is our Designer). I found (d) to be a starting point to work from to scientifically explain further into the (once) unknown. I'm not sure whether that's what you intended, but what you said caught my attention. The only way to explain why was to start at the beginning on into novel tornado metaphor to the bigger picture. After several hours of thought I finally ended when I reached "universe" and I now have to say that what you said got me going real good, but it was well worth my effort. I don't think I ever summed all this up so well. I'm hoping that my example of what happens when the scientific evidence is followed wherever it leads (from what you said) already completely demolished all arguments that assumed (d) had no scientific value and cannot somehow be true, and that you are OK with what I ended up explaining pertaining to how our "designer" works. Gary S. Gaulin

Astroman, And yet the fact remains that there is no mathematical basis for evolution, nor any empirical basis. And your religious beliefs, are strong as they are, don't change this. phoodoo

bornagain77 at 176 said: "The reason I don’t consider evolutionary theory to be a science is because it has no,,, 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis" There you go lying again. Actually, you don't consider evolutionary theory to be a science because you are a delusional God wannabe who won't accept anything that challenges your insane religious beliefs. Astroman

Andre said: "Astro man Bingo!!!!! Bad design does not mean not designed. But every point you raised in that rant as been refuted……. Check out parkcour to see how badly designed we supposedly are." I haven't said said anything about bad design, and what "rant" are you talking about? What is "parkcour"? Astroman

picture of Rich's reductive materialism and Leggett's inequality in the same room: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7274/6860972458_886b8c8e92_z.jpg bornagain77

That's great BA77. Hands up all here who are YECs? Rich

Rich, contrary to what you believe, we are all very Young Earth Creationists now, Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html :) Moreover, this contention is far from just some flaky theory, but this contention has now been confirmed to be true by an incomprehensible 120 standard deviations: Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett's inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video: Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449 Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU bornagain77

Silly Joe. We all know you're a YEC. Rich

lifepsy, You're clearly in denial about this, but vjtorley isn't:

I’d now like to discuss the recent article by KeithS, over at The Skeptical Zone. His key point is a very simple one. What Darwinian evolution explains spectacularly well about life is the striking fact that organisms can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies. As we saw above, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains, which automatically generate nested hierarchies in replicating systems that branch. The process of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, need not generate organisms that can be grouped into objective nested hierarchies: all we can say is that it might.

keith s

I am not a Bible believer nor a YEC that understands evolutionism/ evolutionary "theory" better than keith s. keith s is too dim to understand that transitional forms would ruin an ONH and his position requires numerous transitional forms. And it is sad watching him ignore that devastating refutation, Joe

How would rabbits in the pre-cambrian falsify an alleged theory that can't even explain rabbits? Joe

lifepsy:

I’m a Bible believing Young Earth Creationist that understands evolution “theory” better than you do.

:-) keith s

Keith S, 200

universal common descent — particularly of the ‘ID by guided evolution’ variety – can produce patterns that make it impossible to recover an objective nested hierarchy.

Like I said, you're in denial. Loss and/or reversal of traits and/or incomplete lineage sorting during guided or UNguided evolution could potentially mask the signal of common descent to such an extent to where identification of the objective nested hierarchy is impossible. We have real-world examples of this. Retroposon insertions are supposed to be top dog of recovering an objective phylogeny because of the implausibility of homoplasies. Yet an objective nested hierarchy is irrecoverable among the entire placental mammal "tree". The signal has supposedly been masked by incomplete lineage sorting, leaving a complex "mosaic of traits" that inherently contradict any notion of a single objective nested hierarchy. "Effects of alternating divergence, hybridization, introgression, and incomplete lineage sorting might complicate our search for a clear dichotomy at the base of this tree and leave us with an indistinct, effective ‘soft’ polytomy, leading sometimes to one or the other solution depending on the size of the data set and the particular markers examined." Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals 2009 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F4/ Here we can see that such "unguided" evolutionary patterns on a larger scale throughout the animal kingdom could easily confound any semblance of an objective nested hierarchy. (Keith S, I'm sure you will ignore all of this because it is inconvenient to your thesis, but I post it for others' benefit.)

....and that this subset just happens to be the subset that creates a recoverable, objective, nested hierarchy of the kind that is predicted by unguided evolution.

That's a complete joke, seeing as how "unguided evolution" could accommodate a countless number of different data sets, and just about any number of inherent discrepancies within those data sets. As far as I can tell from your posts, you're basically just making things up and claiming victory. Btw, I am most certainly not a "Common Descent IDer". I'm a Bible believing Young Earth Creationist that understands evolution "theory" better than you do. lifepsy

With opponents like Mung, who needs allies? keith s

keiths:

If people start disappearing, look for us at The Skeptical Zone, where discussion is open and everyone is welcome.

Mung:

Everyone but the truth.

And yet we've welcomed you there, Mung. You've even posted OPs! Therefore, by your own logic, what you say at TSZ is false. Have you ever made it more than a couple of comments without shooting yourself in the foot? keith s

Mung: "Everyone but the truth." Posturing. There is nothing stopping the truth from visiting or residing there. Rich

keiths:

Based on past experience, the ban hammer may fall at any moment. Barry and KF don’t like being embarrassed, and that tends to happen frequently when ID critics are around.

keiths is deluded. He has no argument and he knows it, so he claims that his inevitable banning will be because he has an irrefutable argument. Posturing. keiths:

If people start disappearing, look for us at The Skeptical Zone, where discussion is open and everyone is welcome.

Everyone but the truth. Mung

Keith #200: And because a digital camera predicts the action of taking a picture we actually observe on our computer screen, out of the hundreds of alternative actions available to a mobile phone, it is literally hundreds of times better than a mobile phone at explaining a picture.

see: #41, #108, #159. Box

Phinehas

Someone pointed out on a different thread that the usual structure of armies is that of an objective nested hierarchy. Is this true or not?

It is not true. Human armies are the subjective creations of multiple human designers. heck, there are trillions of possible army hierarchies. How could any one of them be objective? But if armies were created by evolution, well then, there would be only one army hierarchy and it would be objective. Like ant armies. And human armies. All the product not of design, but of evolution. Atten Hut! Mung

keiths:

Barry, If my bomb is such a dud, you should be able to defuse it easily, in your own words.How about it?

LOL! How to defuse a marshmallow! There is no bomb, keiths. There's just imaginative posturing. Here, let's give you a chance to redeem yourself. Here's a simple question. What is your best reason for your assertion that ID is incompatible with the evidence for common descent? Is it that ID actually is compatible with the evidence for common descent? wow, you convinced me! And to think I was a skeptic! Mung

lifepsy,

You’re in denial about the simple fact that universal common descent can potentially produce patterns of character traits that make it impossible to recover an objective nested hierarchy.

I don't deny it, I stress it! It's an important part of my argument. Read this carefully, lifepsy. From my OP:

What about our third subset of IDers — those who accept the truth of common descent but believe that intelligent guidance is necessary to explain macroevolution? The evidence is a problem for them, too, despite the fact that they accept common descent. The following asymmetry explains why: the discovery of an objective nested hierarchy implies common descent, but the converse is not true; common descent does not imply that we will be able to discover an objective nested hierarchy. There are many choices available to a Designer who guides evolution. Only a tiny fraction of them lead to a inferable, objective nested hierarchy. The Designer would have to restrict himself to gradual changes and predominantly vertical inheritance of features in order to leave behind evidence of the kind we see. In other words, our ‘common descent IDers’ face a dilemma like the one faced by the creationists. They can force guided evolution to match the evidence, but only by making a completely arbitrary assumption about the behavior of the Designer. They must stipulate, for no particular reason, that the Designer restricts himself to a tiny subset of the available options, and that this subset just happens to be the subset that creates a recoverable, objective, nested hierarchy of the kind that is predicted by unguided evolution. Unguided evolution doesn’t require any such arbitrary assumptions. It matches the evidence without them, and is therefore a superior explanation. And because unguided evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of the kind we actually observe in nature, out of the trillions of alternatives available to a Designer who guides evolution, it is literally trillions of times better than ID at explaining the evidence.

So you see, lifepsy, you are exactly right: universal common descent -- particularly of the 'ID by guided evolution' variety - can produce patterns that make it impossible to recover an objective nested hierarchy. Yet we are able to recover an ONH, which is exactly what is predicted by unguided, gradual evolution with primarily vertical inheritance. Unguided evolution makes a precise prediction that ID cannot match. It's a disaster for ID. keith s

Just a reminder to everyone. Based on past experience, the ban hammer may fall at any moment. Barry and KF don't like being embarrassed, and that tends to happen frequently when ID critics are around. If people start disappearing, look for us at The Skeptical Zone, where discussion is open and everyone is welcome. Everyone except the infantile Joe, that is. Joe couldn't resist the temptation to link to porn, so he alone managed to get himself banned. keith s

Collin, actually it is not surprising that unguided evolution would have no rigid mathematical basis. As Berlinski put the situation, 'There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics'.

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/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html

Indeed, Wallace, co-discoverer of Natural Selection, went even further and said that our ability to use mathematics was proof that we had a soul that was not reducible to a material basis:

"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 Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, 1910

And indeed the Christian founders of modern science certainly held closely to this 'made in God's image' view,,

‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’ & “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.” – Johannes Kepler Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei "To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge." Copernicus

i.e. without God there could be no math, and without man having a soul/mind made in the image of God, there would be no comprehension by us of this transcendent, invisible, realm of mathematics by which God governs the universe!!

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

Verse and Music:

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song” http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DL6LPLNX Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, “Hope”)

bornagain77

BA77, Ridged mathematics is only required by darwinists for calculating FCSI. They don't need math for their theory to be true. Collin

Actually, although you consider yourself without peer in evolutionary theory on UD, you do not get to define the rules for 'out of sequence'.,,, disparity preceding diversity is exactly the opposite pattern predicted by Darwin himself. ,,, Since fossils continually display 'early high disparity' in contrast to what Darwin himself predicted for diversity preceding disparity, then indeed the fossil record is 'out of sequence' to what Darwin himself originally predicted for the appearance of different kinds of fossils in the fossil record. If you disagree, resurrect Darwin and argue with him! :) Moreover, you act as if a 'Cambrian Rabbit' would falsify Darwinism?,,, Really??? And exactly why does the sudden appearance, seemingly out of nowhere, of 20 plus phyla not falsify Darwinism but a rabbit would? Exactly what in Darwin's theory predicts the sudden appearance of 20 phyla but not a rabbit? Which brings us back to the lack of a rigid mathematical basis to falsify Darwinism with. Can you tell us, since you are the supposed expert, where this rigid mathematical basis is that will allow Darwinism to potentially be falsified? bornagain77

bornagain the liar said: "And as to the non-falsifiability of Darwin’s theory, you being the expert and all that you claim to be, I thought you were going to show us the rigid mathematical basis of Darwinism that will allow it to potentially be falsified as say Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and yes, even ID, are?" Show where I claimed to be an "expert" and where I said that I'd show "the rigid mathematical basis of Darwinism" or anything else. I don't even use the word "Darwinism" except to point out that you ID proponents display your ignorance of modern Evolutionary Theory and your hateful obsession with Darwin by using it. Are you proud to be a liar? Astroman

And lifespy is wrong. Rabbit fossils found in Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian sediments (in situ) would be a huge blow to Evolutionary Theory. You better get out there and find some. Maybe you'll find fossils of Adam and Eve too. Good luck. Astroman

bornagain77, disparity, whether early or later, does not mean "out of sequence". A rabbit in the Cambrian would be "out of sequence". Astroman

Someone pointed out on a different thread that the usual structure of armies is that of an objective nested hierarchy. Is this true or not? If the above is true, since a designer could have selected (supposedly) trillions of different ways to organize an army, does this mean that evolution is a trillion times more likely to have created such organizations? Why not? Phinehas

"in what way does the Hughes, Gerber, and Wills paper support you claim that “fossils are found out of sequence all the time”?" HMMMM let's see,,, “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.”,,, That would be pretty much the entire fossil record that is 'out of sequence' to the diversity preceding disparity pattern that Darwin himself predicted. And as lifepsy pointed out, 'if' a Precambrian rabbit were ever found, Darwinists would simply accommodate in the non-falsifiable fog that is Darwin's theory there is nothing in Darwin's theory that prevents a Precambrian rabbit from occurring then, you are merely accommodating Darwin's theory to what is already commonly known about the fossil record!. ,,, And as to the non-falsifiability of Darwin's theory, you being the expert and all that you claim to be, I thought you were going to show us the rigid mathematical basis of Darwinism that will allow it to potentially be falsified as say Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and yes, even ID, are? bornagain77

bornagain77, in what way does the Hughes, Gerber, and Wills paper support you claim that "fossils are found out of sequence all the time"? If you want to show a fossil that is out of sequence, go find some rabbit bones in Cambrian sediments. Astroman

181 Enkidu

It’s a completely valid falsification.

Then why can't you answer the question? I even bolded it for you. What is the “magical barrier” that prevents the evolution of 6 limbs? In Darwinian fantasy-land there is no such constraint, thus there is no such prediction. Thus your falsification criteria isn't even logically linked to your shapeless jello-like "theory". It's just based on common knowledge of what we know about the basic types of animals that have existed. lifepsy

KF,

The test for ID is simple. Show on observation blind chance and/or mechanical necessity de novo creating functionally specific complex organisation and associated information.

Why is it the responsibility of ID's critics to test its theories? Since the design detection toolkit has never been shown to actually operate in the real world, where no IDist has even attempted to test it under controlled circumstances, your proposal is obviously quite premature. And since IDists have demonstrated how slippery and impractical the concepts of "functionally specific complex information" are (given Dembski's sense of complexity, as opposed to Orgel's), even applying your proposed test assumes things we know are virtually impossible in the real world: calculating CSI, for example. Learned Hand

Thanks to BA77 for offering this on another thread today ...

The paper’s conclusion is that, of the very large number of paths that random evolution could have taken, at best only extremely rare ones could lead to the functional modern protein. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....87061.html

It's not about finch beaks and wisdom teeth. Silver Asiatic

From there, you could start with probably the most obviously designed feature on earth – the human mind.

I should have said, more obviously, Life itself. Silver Asiatic

The claim that the fossil record will falsify Darwinism is a joke, fossils are found out of sequence all the time. In fact a recent paper turned the fossil record 'on its head' compared to what Darwin originally predicted. 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-scientific-evolution.html “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians etc.. etc.. bornagain77

Enkidu

Which aspects, and how did you objectively tell?

I'm guessing you don't know that much about ID. If so, you could start with Behe's "Edge of Evolution". I think Dembski's Explanatory Filter (found in several of his works) is a good resource also, which helps to explain how we infer that certain aspects of nature have been designed. From there, you could start with probably the most obviously designed feature on earth - the human mind. The topic expands to the nature of the universe also as an explanation for fine-tuning. As you learn more about ID from serious sources (read Wells, Meyer, Dembski, Behe, Berlinski, Gauger and others) you'll get better answers than what you'll find in the comments on this blog site.

Lots of IDers on this very site tell me the whole universe and everything in it was Designed. Now you say it’s just piece-parts. Which is it?

Well, you have to get a lot more specific than that. In any kind of research and analysis, you have to offer references and some kind of context to evaluate. Again, I gave you a definition. Let's take a look: "Some aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by intelligence". Is that statement incompatible with the belief that "the whole universe was designed"? Yes or no? Is that statement the same as saying that "everything in the universe shows empirical evidence of having been designed by intelligence"? I'll answer that for you ... No. It's not the same. We're looking at empirical evidence. Some things may, indeed, have been designed, but we do not observe evidence of that. We can explain their origin through chance or natural laws. A pile of rocks after an avalanche? There's no need for the design inference in that case because we see the results of a repeatable natural process. Silver Asiatic

Joe, yup. 117, citing Origin, ch 6. But bury it in the onward march of the talking points is such fun. KF kairosfocus

E: The test for ID is simple. Show on observation blind chance and/or mechanical necessity de novo creating functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. That is, falsify the design inference induction on FSCO/I as sign. As has been highlighted any number of times, including over the past few days. If you don't know that, you do not know what you are talking about. If you do, but wanted to play rhetorical games, it is worse. KF kairosfocus

lifepsy You guys just say inane things like this because after centuries of digging up fossils, it is now quite safe to say there are no 6-limbed vertebrates. Pseudo-falsification criteria. It's a completely valid falsification. Finding a species of 6 limbed vertebrates now would blow the phlogenetic tree all to hell. Like I said ToE is falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. You should learn the difference. I noticed you skipped the other two falsification criteria I gave as well as the question on what would falsify ID. No surprises there. Enkidu

keith s- Your argument was refuted by Darwin (1859). Your attempt to refute that exposed you as a very desperate child. Congratulations Joe

Enkidu 162

Evolutionary theory is certainly falsifiable. Just find some vertebrate species with six limbs.

You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no logic behind that statement. What is this magical "rule of evolution" that says 4 limbs can evolve but 6 limbs are impossible? As you guys love to ask, what is the "magical barrier" that prevents the evolution of 6 limbs? In Darwinian fantasy-land there is no such constraint, thus there is no such prediction. You guys just say inane things like this because after centuries of digging up fossils, it is now quite safe to say there are no 6-limbed vertebrates. Pseudo-falsification criteria. If a pattern of 6-limbed vertebrates had emerged when the bulk of early paleontological discovery was underway, that group would have inevitably been worked into the Evolution creation narrative, as a lineage branching off of the common ancestor to a 4-limb body plan. The explanation, of course, would be that "natural selection did it". No fossil transitions? No problem! lifepsy

Enkidu- You can't even explain how populations of prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. And those prokaryotes were given to you to start with. Mitochondria and chloroplasts "look like" they could have been free-living prokaryotes doesn't cut it. And it only tries to explain those organelles. That means all it gives you is another prokaryote but with a battery. Joe

Silver Asiatic Some aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by intelligence. Which aspects, and how did you objectively tell? Lots of IDers on this very site tell me the whole universe and everything in it was Designed. Now you say it's just piece-parts. Which is it? If so, then you’ll have a better idea about the kinds of questions ID is oriented towards. It seems to be "the kind of questions we can hand-wave away without answering". Enkidu

Astroman when you allude to my supposed ignorance of evolutionary theory, I guess, by default, that makes you an expert on evolutionary theory. At least more expert than you think I am, or other UDers are. If you do consider yourself fluent in evolutionary theory, at least more so than I and others on UD, can you help me/us with a few problems that I/we have with evolutionary theory? You see Astroman, I don't even consider evolutionary theory to be a science. The reason I don't consider evolutionary theory to be a science is because it has no,,,

1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis

as you can see Astroman, The number 1 reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of 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, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that 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 Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012 Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html “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. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity - October 9, 2014 Excerpt: "it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.",,, More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/darwinians_try090231.html 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.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Chaitin is quoted at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof - Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for evolution failed to deliver the goods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600 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,, E. coli contain(s) 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; Walter Remine

Thus Astroman, where have we IDiots missed it? Where is the rigid mathematical basis that will allow Darwinism to be falsified (and thus allow Darwinism to be considered a proper science?)? ID can easily be falsified if Darwinists could produce a single molecular machine by unguided Darwinian processes! Darwinian evolution simply has no such criteria that will allow it to be falsified, and as such it is able to accomidate any contradictory evidence into its 'tea-leaf reading' scheme. As lifepsy put it, 'Evolution “theory” is a shapeless fog that is always settling over the shifting landscape of data.'

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

bornagain77

Andre I don’t think Enkidu got the memo that those “hind limbs” actually help whales in having sex……..,/i> That's the Creationist claim for vestigial hip bones, not for atavistic legs. Get your Creationist PRATTs straight. Enkidu

Astroman @154 said:

William, you apparently think that your commenting history has magically vanished from UD, TSZ, etc. It hasn’t.

Feel free to actually point out where I have attacked evolutionary theory, like I asked. William J Murray

I can provide a coherent evolutionary explanation backed up with empirical evidence for cetacean hind limbs, wisdom teeth, and vertical spines.

You have to explain the entire biosphere. You think you have explanations for wisdom teeth, vertical spines and cetacean hind limbs. I wouldn't call that much of a start -- and I would call it quite an impoverished view of the world.

I’d love to hear the ID explanation for those features.

For some reason, you don't seem to understand what the ID proposal is. But I'll offer it again in case you missed it. Some aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by intelligence. Can you recognize the limits inherent in that definition? If so, then you'll have a better idea about the kinds of questions ID is oriented towards. Silver Asiatic

This is funny. In the OP, Barry claimed that my argument

failed at many levels... WJM lopped off the Black Knight’s arms and KF took out his legs.

I challenged him:

Let me repeat my challenge from the other thread:

Barry, If my bomb is such a dud, you should be able to defuse it easily, in your own words. How about it?

After you’ve made your attempt, I’ll respond. Then we can look to see who is bleeding and who isn’t.

A day later, and still no response from Barry. Meanwhile, Barry's new thread shows that he has been frantically trying to learn about cladistics, in the vain hope that he'll be able to cash the check that his ego wrote here. I'll be back later to address the other commenters, but this was too funny not to point out. keith s

I don't think Enkidu got the memo that those "hind limbs" actually help whales in having sex........ Andre

Astro man Bingo!!!!! Bad design does not mean not designed. But every point you raised in that rant as been refuted....... Check out parkcour to see how badly designed we supposedly are. Andre

Silver Asiatic That’s how you summarize all the variety and complexity of biological life on earth? I can provide a coherent evolutionary explanation backed up with empirical evidence for cetacean hind limbs, wisdom teeth, and vertical spines. I'd love to hear the ID explanation for those features. Do you have one? Was the omnipotent Designer having an off day when he came up with those? Enkidu

All that power and capability yet he still left the genes for growing hind limbs in cetaceans so we occasionally find whales and dolphins with atavistic legs.

That's how you summarize all the variety and complexity of biological life on earth? I think you set the bar too low for the unintelligent designer. There's a lot more on earth than wisdom teeth and finch beaks. I take it you're an atheist, right? Your philosophical assumption is that of materialism? Silver Asiatic

There is no such thing as an atheist, just ignorant fools that have some sort of wonky idea of what God is, its dangerous I tell you. Enkidu, a God that deceives can not be the God that created this universe.This universe was created so that we can comprehend and learn about it. Andre

Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats. 2012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22891620 For more than a decade, evolutionary relationships among members of the New World bat family Phyllostomidae inferred from morphological and molecular data have been in conflict. In conclusion, the biological processes that generate phylogenetic conflict are ubiquitous, and overcoming incongruence requires better models and more data than have been collected even in well-studied organisms such as phyllostomid bats. Silver Asiatic

bornagain77 said: "Astroman do you think that what we observe happening in existing populations can be extrapolated to say humans evolved from some chimp-like ancestor? much less extrapolated to say that all life descended from some bacterial ancestor? If you think so you would be wrong. There is no scientific justification for extrapolating what we see happening in existing populations to try to explain the origin of all life on earth." By existing populations, do you mean humans, or particular primates, or all primates, or all biological things, or what? And saying "chimp-like" just adds to your display of not knowing squat about Evolutionary Theory. Astroman

Silver Asiatic The other, an intelligent designer, has a trillion times the power, creative resources and capability to design. All that power and capability yet he still left the genes for growing hind limbs in cetaceans so we occasionally find whales and dolphins with atavistic legs. He gave humans wisdom teeth that in many people require surgery to avoid painful infections or even death when they grow into a mouth too small to accommodate them. He gave humans vertical spines much better suited to quadruped locomotion so we'd have a lifetime of disk problems and back pain. ID must mean Incompetent Designer. Enkidu

Enkidu is actually saying, dang God could be some malicious pitefull ass that is just deceiving us by planting bones of big reptiles. You are as ignorant as keith S...... All you guys have are religious statements, God is spiteful! God would not o it that way! Enough religious talk and show us what natural procesess can actually do. Andre

Collin And thus we can conclude that evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. Someone should do a paper on that. Evolutionary theory is certainly falsifiable. Just find some vertebrate species with six limbs. Or show that the phylogenies created from the fossil and genetic records are wildly discordant. Or show that different animal "kinds" have different incompatible forms of DNA. ToE is quite falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified. What would falsify an Intelligent Designer? Showing natural processes causing evolution won't do it because a powerful enough Designer could be manipulating the processes to achieve its ends. No ID falsification means ID is unscientific, right? Enkidu

Two designers One, blind, unintelligent designer shows extremely limited and inconsistent ability to create slight modifications in organisms, with its strongest effect actually in killing organisms. The other, an intelligent designer, has a trillion times the power, creative resources and capability to design. The explanatory task is for all biological life on earth (you could take it out to the entire universe). The difference between the minor adaptations in bacteria or in finch beaks, and the entire biosphere is a factor of over trillion times in magnitude. The intelligent agent with over a trillion times the power and creative resources is a trillion times better explanation for the entire biosphere. Silver Asiatic

Collin And if you have chunks of DNA appearing almost unchanged, isn’t it a good explanation that a designer took some parts and put them into a different model? And doesn’t this mean there is no ONH? How big are these chunks Collin? What percentage of the overall kangaroo gene are they? The simple fact is all mammals have genetic sequences that are shared with humans. That's because we all have a common mammalian ancestor. The folks who sequenced the first kangaroo genome back in 2008 made the announcement as more of a publicity grab than for any real scientific amazement. I'd love to hear the ID explanation for why kangaroo DNA has chunks of human DNA in it. Do you have one? Enkidu

Further analysis of Keith’s “logic”, (intro see post #41):

1) Unguided evolution explains X 2) A designer explains X, but also a trillion of alternatives. Therefore unguided evolution is a trillion times more likely to be a cause for X. - or: 1) a digital camera explains a picture 2) a mobile phone explains a picture, but also 100 other things. Therefore a digital camera is a 100 times more likely to be the cause for a picture.

In the absence of an explanation by Keith himself, I hold that his reasoning goes like this: There is a 100% chance that an action by a digital camera produces a picture. There is 1% chance that an action by a mobile phone produces a picture, assuming that the 100 functions of a mobile phone are all used equally. So far so good. We observe a picture on a computer screen. Is it more likely that this picture is produced by a digital camera than by a mobile phone? Keith’s answer would be: “Yes it is much more likely that a digital camera did it. In fact, there is 100% chance that the picture is produced by a digital camera and 1% chance that the picture has been produced by a mobile phone”. What went wrong here? How did we arrive at a total of 101%? According to Keith, the likelihood of being a cause = 1 / number of functions X 100% Obviously, this is nonsense. Box

Astroman do you think that what we observe happening in existing populations can be extrapolated to say humans evolved from some chimp-like ancestor? much less extrapolated to say that all life descended from some bacterial ancestor? If you think so you would be wrong. There is no scientific justification for extrapolating what we see happening in existing populations to try to explain the origin of all life on earth. bornagain77

Silver and Lifepsy, And thus we can conclude that evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. Someone should do a paper on that. Collin

lifepsy, do you think that the differences between primates, including humans, can be accurately described as "extinction or degeneracy of populations, cyclical movement around a mean average phenotype – varying levels of expression of pre-existing functional traits"? Astroman

Silver Asiatic

“Evolutionary theory predicted that, given over 150 million years since divergence and the obvious differences in morphology between kangaroos and humans, that the two genomes would be radically different, but evolutionary theory was obviously falsified on this point.”

That's what I mean regarding Evolution accommodating opposing outcomes. If Humans and Kangaroos exhibited predictable levels of genomic divergence, then this would be used as "evidence" of Evolution. But since they exhibit unexpected levels of genomic divergence, this then becomes "evidence" of an unexpectedly extreme rate of genetic conservation in the mystical fantastical evolutionary past. Evolution "theory" is a shapeless fog that is always settling over the shifting landscape of data. Most of its' proponents don't even understand that and think it's actually a strength of the "theory". "Look it always fits!" lol.. Both funny and sad... lifepsy

Willian j Murray asked: "Where have I attacked evolutionary theory?" William, you apparently think that your commenting history has magically vanished from UD, TSZ, etc. It hasn't. Astroman

enkidu 129

Nowhere has ToE or any theory I know done that.

It does it all the time because ToE has no rigorous constraints. You just appear to be ignorant of that. Unexpected data can virtually always be accommodated by imagineering the past activity of these mystical common ancestors and lineages that are not found in evidence.

Life is a complicated place and somethimes there isn’t one simple explanation for all events.

"Natural Selection dunnit" is pretty simple... and stupid. Yet that has primarily been your useless slogan for decades now.

Take the arguments over gradualism vs. punk eek. In there real world rates of evolution are variable. Sometimes there’s stasis, sometimes there’s gradual change, sometimes there are raid jumps. The theory has to accommodate all the conditions.

In the real world there is no "evolution" as you imagine it. There is extinction or degeneracy of populations, or cyclical movement around a mean average phenotype - varying levels of expression of pre-existing functional traits. That is the real world. You consider such plain facts a blasphemy of course... and will of course continue to ignore addressing it. Your "theory" is useless since it can accommodate all conditions. This is ensured when you base the theory on imaginary data points (common ancestors and subsequent lineages of major taxa), and then task yourself with rearranging those imaginary data points to best fit with the data. lifepsy

Collin 149

“We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome.” Does “surprise” mean that the theory predicted something different? And if we keep getting these surprises doesn’t that mean there’s something wrong with the theory?

Here's the way I read it: "We thought they'd be completely scrambled but they're not." That means ... "Evolutionary theory predicted that, given over 150 million years since divergence and the obvious differences in morphology between kangaroos and humans, that the two genomes would be radically different, but evolutionary theory was obviously falsified on this point." They continue ... "Kangaroos are hugely informative about what we were like 150 million years ago," Graves said. That means, "We won't pay any attention to the failed prediction and just make it appear like there is no problem whatsoever." Silver Asiatic

Joe, so comments are closed because you already know there are no good responses. Really? You're going with that? Rich

roding and Rich- Why is it that the leading lights of evolutionary biology have absolutely nothing to offer? Why is it that they spend most of their time talking about cats and other irrelevant nonsense? The comments get closed after it is obvious the opposition has nothing to offer. Deal with that, Rich Joe

This is a little late, but here is an article showing that scientists are surprised at how similar kangaroo DNA is to human. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/18/us-australia-kangaroos-idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 Here's a quote "We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." Does "surprise" mean that the theory predicted something different? And if we keep getting these surprises doesn't that mean there's something wrong with the theory? And if you have chunks of DNA appearing almost unchanged, isn't it a good explanation that a designer took some parts and put them into a different model? And doesn't this mean there is no ONH? Collin

Roding @ 142: Joe has (had?) top secret clearance who wrote genetic algorithms for encryption projects. He's the real deal. Rich

How is pointing out I've had my account deleted 4 times having "attitude showing", KF? Let's try this another way. Why do you close comments on your posts? Rich

Astroman: Yep, the banning of ID opponents, blocking of comments, closure of comments, and comments off posts are gaining speed here at UD. Barry has predictably chickened out of allowing open commenting, and UD is quickly reverting to being the usual, boring, echo-chamber sanctuary that cowardly ID-creation proponents hide in.

Before you get banned also, can you highlight some of the best arguments against ID that have been offered during the last week? The kind that gives Barry no other option than to chicken out and start banning people? Box

Umm, Rich, you guys don't have anything to say. You have proven that the best you have is your churlish behavior. Joe

kairosfocus Rich, pardon but you have attitude showing Kairosfocus I noticed you started yet another thread with comments off so people can't point out your errors. That shows us your attitude but not in the way you think. Enkidu

Yep, the banning of ID opponents, blocking of comments, closure of comments, and comments off posts are gaining speed here at UD. Barry has predictably chickened out of allowing open commenting, and UD is quickly reverting to being the usual, boring, echo-chamber sanctuary that cowardly ID-creation proponents hide in. Astroman

Roding @139, as Axel points out, you’ve got “the intellects of the likes of Kairosfocus, WJM, Cornelius, VJT, BA77, Barry, Joe et al”

True, and I'm not disparaging their contribution. But several of these people don't even what to reveal their true names. And of these only Cornelius is a trained biologist? roding

Rich, pardon but you have attitude showing. There is a FTR, which provides illustrations and remarks with onward links which also links right back here, which it supports. If you have something substantial to say above nasty name calling I am accessible at least intermittently these days. Gone again, after the brushfire of the morning. KF kairosfocus

roding @139, as Axel points out, you've got "the intellects of the likes of Kairosfocus, WJM, Cornelius, VJT, BA77, Barry, Joe et al" Rich

Why is it do you suppose that the leading lights of the UD movement - Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer etc do not post here? I believe Dembski did at one time. But given that this is supposed to be (afaik) the only real official ID blog, it's surprising they don't contribute more. No offense to those that do post here (often prolifically) but I think having the main ID thinkers post here would lend more credibility to the site. roding

Mindpowers, don't be bitter. Get some BBP. Rich

@ WJM #128 'kf, Thinking of them as mindless automatons, even though I treat them as conscious entities, grants me comfort and equanimity in the face of their tireless, nonsensical output. Otherwise, it’s just too profoundly sad and troubling to subject myself to.' I'm afraid it's clear to Keith (and his mum, I expect) and enkidunot, castellans of the army of the Black knight, himself, that the intellects of the likes of Kairosfocus, WJM, Cornelius, VJT, BA77, Barry, Joe et al are just not, nay, could never be, a match for the towering, magisterial intellects of the knights of Castle Darkness. Excuse me a second.... back in a minute... Ah.. that's better... Oops! Off again. Tries vainly to stifle another tearful laughter. Axel

I see UD is still having problems with Freedom of expression. I've had my account deleted for the 4th time and just reregistered again. Guys, you've got to stop grabbing every opportunity to look bad. KF has written another cowardly comments closed posts. This is typical of any regime trying to hold on but not having the truth on their side. Message control, spin, censorship.. Barry is to be commended for beginning UD's Glasnost - the rest of the old school hard-liners need to get behind it also. Rich

If you think anything I have posted is offered as “proof” of a theory you’re even more hopelessly uninformed than you seem.

Then why did you offer those concepts as "overarching" concepts not in need of "retesting", and challenge ID advocates to test them and submit papers, unless you considered them proof of something that ID couldn't falsify but wanted to? Were they just random evolutionary concepts you believe don't need retesting, even if they have nothing whatsoever to do with the ID position? They seem to me to be rather trivial evolutionary concepts that ID doesn't really quibble with directly. The only "overarching" evolutionary concept that ID directly challenges is the one that claims that unguided forces are sufficient to the task of generating novel macroevolutionary features. William J Murray

Sometimes there’s stasis, sometimes there’s gradual change, sometimes there are raid jumps. The theory has to accommodate all the conditions.

Organisms might change, or not. Evolutionary theory is 100% correct, and it keeps changing and improving every day. Silver Asiatic

Enkidu- Why is it that no one can link to this alleged theory of evolution? It's as if it doesn't exist. Joe

lifepsy

And when will you realize that even trillions of years of “speciation” does not necessitate an increase in complexity?

That point is never addressed. Survival itself, does not require an increase in complexity (bacteria survive quite well). The amount of complexity and variation we observe far outstrips environmental and survival pressures. And stasis shows a resistance to adaptation even through millions of years of environmental change. Evolutionary storytelling doesn't provide any real answers to those problems. Silver Asiatic

William J Murray It strikes me as a rather odd set of “overarching concepts” to use as “proof” of evolutionary theory vs ID concepts. If you think anything I have posted is offered as "proof" of a theory you're even more hopelessly uninformed than you seem. Enkidu

Evolution basic concepts 1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. 2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. 3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment have a better chance to survive. 4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.

Might as well be talking about baraminology as that is what it says too. Joe

lifepsy If a theory is comfortable with opposing outcomes, it is completely disingenuous to then use one of those outcomes as evidence for the theory. Nowhere has ToE or any theory I know done that. Life is a complicated place and somethimes there isn't one simple explanation for all events. Take the arguments over gradualism vs. punk eek. In there real world rates of evolution are variable. Sometimes there's stasis, sometimes there's gradual change, sometimes there are raid jumps. The theory has to accommodate all the conditions. I'm sorry if you don't understand the purpose or formation of scientific theories. Have you ever thought about taking a beginning science class at your local community college? Enkidu

kf, Thinking of them as mindless automatons, even though I treat them as conscious entities, grants me comfort and equanimity in the face of their tireless, nonsensical output. Otherwise, it's just too profoundly sad and troubling to subject myself to. William J Murray

Enkidu said:

Why is it not surprising that you don’t understand even the basics of the theory you keep attacking?

Where have I attacked evolutionary theory? All I've done here recently is point out the absurdity of keith's "argument" and make a general comment about the current state of commentary in general on this blog. I don't really see where you can draw a conclusion about how much I understand evolutionary theory when I ask you to clarify what you consider to be the "overarching" evolutionary concepts.

1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. 2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. 3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment have a better chance to survive. 4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.

It strikes me as a rather odd set of "overarching concepts" to use as "proof" of evolutionary theory vs ID concepts. Is it your belief that ID theory directly challenges any of the above? William J Murray

Enkidu 122

Evolution basic concepts 1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. 2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. 3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment have a better chance to survive. 4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.

"Change over time" equivocations already? That didn't take long. When will you evo mystics realize that the same conditions would apply in a separate ancestry scenario? Is it that hard to figure out? And when will you realize that even trillions of years of "speciation" does not necessitate an increase in complexity? In fact all of the observational evidence of extant populations indicates the exact opposite - "speciation" = functional degeneracy or cycling around a mean average phenotype. Supposed evolutionary trajectories towards new anatomy or body-plans, or novel complexity of any kind remains nothing but a mystical imagination not found in data. lifepsy

WJM, I would challenge you on the mindedness claim. I agree, ideologies can lock us into rather strange and illogical states as we have seen, a case in point of the truimphalism of circularity, but it is clear that with effort we can wake up from errors. KF kairosfocus

Enkidu 119 If you're just going to quote half a sentence and not address my actual argument then please don't bother responding. As to your next inanity:

All scientific theories react and adapt to new data. That’s how science works.

If a theory is comfortable with opposing outcomes, it is completely disingenuous to then use one of those outcomes as evidence for the theory. Something Darwinian mystics like yourself will never understand. By the odd chance that you actually recognize the extreme plasticity of Evolution "theory", you will then go on to consider it a strength! The more the theory can change to accommodate the data, the better, right? lol lifepsy

F/N 3: FTR note on design thought and the logic of the design inference, here, including illustrations. Discussion is of course continuing here in this thread. KF kairosfocus

William J Murray What are the overarching concepts of evolution that don’t need retesting? Why is it not surprising that you don't understand even the basics of the theory you keep attacking?

Evolution basic concepts 1. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. 2. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. 3. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment have a better chance to survive. 4. When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.

Again you are free to retest anything you want. Go for it, let us know the results. Enkidu

Summary of keith's "argument" (except without the misuse of Occam's Razor): if we assume natural forces is the better explanation by a factor of trillions, then natural forces is the better explanation by a factor of trillions. William J Murray

Enkidu said:

The overarching concepts of evolution don’t need retesting.

What are the overarching concepts of evolution that don't need retesting? William J Murray

lifepsy 115: Things like this simply are not tests of Evolution, Discovering a new detail doesn't affect the validity of the rest of the millions of pieces of evidence. The overarching concepts of evolution don't need retesting. They've withstood every test tossed at them for the last 150 years. Of course if you doubt the theory you're free to do any tests you want and publish the results. What's stopping you? )because Evolution reacts and adapts to such data All scientific theories react and adapt to new data. That's how science works. Enkidu

Keith said:

I’ve rebutted your previous criticisms. Do you have a new one?

Perhaps in your mind you actually think this is true. I can't imagine someone carrying this inane of an argument into the public square deliberately if they didn't actually believe in their mind it was a good argument. There is no rebuttal to the fact that your argument is attempting to reach a conclusion that ID already stipulates and which is entirely trivial to ID theory. If natural forces can plausibly produce a bacterial flagellum , a battleship or the Mona Lisa, ID theory already stipulates that "natural causes" is the better explanation. It's just bizarre to me that you keep insisting (and apparently believing) that your argument is significant when, even if we stipulate your argument is 100% correct and it's conclusion 100% valid, it is utterly trivial in nature because it assumes arguendo everything which ID theory challenges. I mean, the ID-side equivalent of your argument (as bad as it is) would be that if we assume natural forces could create trillions of alternatives to a nested hierarchy, and we assume that an intelligent designer could only have produced a nested hierarchy, then by your reasoning design would be a better explanation by a factor of trillions. Your conclusion (as irrelevant as it is) can be found in your assumptions. Yet you parade around with an implacable, self-aggrandizing internal narrative as if you've made a profound, iron-clad argument, bellowing for continued attention on what is an obvious, embarrassingly absurd failure. (P.S.: This is a good example why I reserve the opinion that not all people are actually conscious agencies; I can't imagine a truly sentient entity with free will spewing forth this degree and volume of utter nonsense in the face of clear and repeated correction. It really is what arguing with a programmed, biological automaton would likely be like.) William J Murray

F/N 2: Darwin asks some pointed q's in Origin, ch 6 -- and note the error of implying or suggesting that NS is anything but a culler out of varieties that in environments are less successful -- that still have no really solid, empirically grounded answer in the evo mat scheme of thought:

DARWIN, Origin, Ch 6: >> why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection? Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians? Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired? . . . >>

Obviously, there is a puzzle there. And, Darwin's promissory note answer rings hollow after 150+ years, 1/4 million or so fossil species, millions of fossil specimens in hand and billions observed in the ground:

On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed

The record is obviously pretty strong in our day, strong enough that alternative theories or supplementary theories -- pick your choice -- were composed on how to account for a dominant fossil pattern of sudden appearances, stasis, gaps and disappearance and/or continuity to the modern world. The and/or being there as we have a certain lobe finned fish that vanished many MY ago on the usual timeline, then popped up in a fishmarket or two. So, the tree archi (generally, note the issues on that) is more of a problem on want of transitionals than is being admitted. And on the implication of such transitionals, that a tree may be not quite right, more of a blob smeared out. But then, this is an ilk that is resistant to self-evident first principles of right reason and suffers the intellectual plague of selective hyperskepticism to anything that hints of design, joined to hypercredulity concerning what provides any faint hope for their world narrative. A sounder approach would be to reckon that in inductive, evidence and observation anchored reasoning on origins, the deep past is not open to direct inspection. So, we must infer on traces per inference to best current explanation. Which in turn points to needing to have observational demonstration that claimed causal factors can and do in our observation have relevant capacity to cause substantially similar results or effects and that cumulatively we have sufficiently discriminatory tests to confirm any one account. We may observe, reason inductively, argue and conclude:

a: Apart from a priori materialism, which begs the question, b: there is simply zero current credible empirical, observational evidence that c: functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information manifested in node-arc structures where correctly arranged and coupled components interact to achieve the functional effect in view beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity [FSCO/I for short], d: i.e.. the node-arcs pattern requires at least 500 - 1,000 y/n q's to specify it in its configs space, e: can and does arise from blind, non-foresighted chance contingency and/or mere mechanical necessity, but f: there are trillions of cases that routinely -- e.g. posts in this thread add to the number -- show that such FSCO/I commonly and easily observably does arise from intelligently directed contingency or configuration or contrivance, i.e. by design. Therefore, g: on inference to best current, empirically grounded explanation, h: such FSCO/I is an inductively reliable sign of design as cause, passing the vera causa -- true cause -- test. Thus, i: the abundant FSCO/I in the world of life strongly, inductively, points to design as empirically credible cause. that is, j: From root to uppermost twigs, there is good inductive reason to hold the scientific view that the world of life is chock full of strong signs -- not merely appearances -- of design.

This, in a nutshell, is the core design case concerning the world of life. There is another, relating to the fine tuning of the observed cosmos that sets up that world of life. KF kairosfocus

Keith s

lifepsy, You’re making the same errors as drc466. See my reply to him.

I read it. You're simply repeating faulty assertions and ignoring counter-arguments. You're in denial about the simple fact that universal common descent can potentially produce patterns of character traits that make it impossible to recover an objective nested hierarchy. lifepsy

Enkidu 98

Of course not. Finding the odd as yet unexplained outlier among a field of millions of pieces of consilient positive evidence doesn’t make all those millions of pieces suddenly vanish. If you find major discrepancies across the board in all the consilence then you may have something. But you don’t.

The picture you paint of Evolution's robustness is laughably false. There would be nothing odd about it, because Evolution accommodates such "outliers" all the time. It is plastic enough whereby one cannot even readily identify an outlier. Evolution would have no problem accommodating a placental more genetically similar to marsupials. It would simply be taken as evidence that the particular placental group is highly conserved from the point when marsupials and placentals first split in the ancient past. It might even be given its own phylogenetic grouping to the exclusion of other placentals. No problem. Things like this simply are not tests of Evolution, because Evolution reacts and adapts to such data. It is like shapeless jello being moved from container to container. lifepsy

F/N: KS of course neatly overlooks the molecular evidence that runs into diverse "trees," and which is probably at least as fundamental as any gross anatomy, narrative. Resemblance implies common descent, except where it does not. Questions are being begged again, and the fundamental issue is, that the only empirically confirmed and routinely observed source of FSCO/I, for ideological reasons must not be admitted. It remains the case that KS cannot get TO the tree of life from blind chance and mechanical necessity, from the root up precisely because he has no empirically grounded account of the origin of FSCO/I on blind chance and mechanical necessity. As a result we see all sorts of distractive and dismissive rhetoric trying to undermine the actually commonplace reality of FSCO/I, and the implication of a great many component parts that to interact and achieve relevant specific function must be correctly chosen or made, must be correctly oriented and must be correctly coupled in a nodes-arcs network (string or 3-d makes but little effective difference as the latter can be informationally reduced to the former) -- sharp constraint on the set of configs consistent with function, i.e. islands of function. Others have been trying the you cannot measure the info in strings and in node-arc networks, which is simply brazen dismissal of what is a commonplace. And of course, all of this is supported based on a climate of poisoning and polarising based on irresponsible accusations. Ideology -- whether evo mat or fellow traveller/enabler makes little difference -- over reason and evidence in a nutshell. It is time for a fresh start. KF kairosfocus

Enkidu:

One cannot assess ID AT ALL

YOU can't because you are ignorant,

when all ID does is make attacks on evolutionary theory.

There isn't any evolutionary theory. ID makes a positive case and your ignorance will never refute that fact. Joe

Alan Fox:

Where is there a CSI calculation other than your bogus nonsense manipulating a simple count of a sequence of amino acids?

LoL! It's only "bogus nonsense" because Alan is a moron. Where is your position's counter, Alan? You have nothing but to spew "tat bogus nonsense" without offering up anything that your position has that is any better. Joe

keith s:

1. You still don’t understand the difference between a nested hierarchy and an objective nested hierarchy, which means you have no idea what I am even arguing.

Nice projection. keith s is totally ignorant wrt nested hierarchies. There is no way that gradual evolution could produce an objective nested hierarchy- too many transitional forms to account for. keith s keeps ignoring that fact as if his ignorance means something. keith s, proudly ignorant of reality. Joe

Collin asks

If something like that were to happen, wouldn’t you say that there has been at least a soft refutation of unguided evolution?

Is there a placental mammal that exhibits more genetic similarity to marsupials than to other placental mammals? Alan Fox

Test Alan Fox

Keith, You still haven't answered my simple question. Onlookers, in post #41, I have highlighted a logical error in Keith's conclusion:

1) Unguided evolution explains X 2) A designer explains X, but also a trillion of alternatives. Therefore unguided evolution is a trillion times better as an explanation for X.

What is wrong with Keith’s conclusion? The (alleged) versatility of the designer is disjoint from the likelihood of being a cause. I have tried to explain this to Keith by presenting a comparison:

Suppose we observe a picture on a computer screen. This photo can be explained by a digital camera or by a mobile phone. Suppose that a digital camera’s sole function is taking pictures. The mobile phone can also take pictures, but has a hundred other functions. 1) a digital camera explains a picture 2) a mobile phone explains a picture, but also 100 other things. Therefore a digital camera is a 100 times better at explaining a picture. - Does the multifuntionality of the mobile phone warrant a conclusion that a digital camera is a hundred times better as an explanation for the photo on a computer screen? Does the digital camera get an even better explanation when new apps are added to the mobile phone?

This comparison makes clear that the multifunctionality (versatility) of a mobile phone does not decrease the likelihood of being a cause. Just like the (alleged) versatility of a designer does not decrease the likelihood of being a cause. What is important wrt the likelihood of being a cause is capability not versatility. Keith's request to ignore the capability question is central to his "argument". Box

Objective nester hierarchy is explained by unguided evolution? LOL!!!!!! Did a village lose it's idiot? Andre

KF, Your comment is a mess. 1. You still don't understand the difference between a nested hierarchy and an objective nested hierarchy, which means you have no idea what I am even arguing. Good luck refuting something you don't even comprehend. 2. You invoked 'islands of function' without even bothering to address the counterarguments and evidence presented here and here. 3. You invoked OOL, when I have repeatedly pointed out that my argument does not depend on naturalistic OOL. 4. You repeated an argument from WJM which has already been refuted. (Even he seems to know that. He hasn't brought it up since.) What a pitiful performance, KF. I'll bet even Barry will do better than you just did. keith s

F/N: It seems, predictably, we go in circles with corrected fallacious design objection arguments endlessly recirculated and declared valid and unanswered by the objectors; by the simple rhetorical device of refusing to address the corrections and/or pretending they don't exist. Patently, designers can and do design many things that follow branching tree (= nested hierarchy) architectures for one reason or another, and the just so stories of how body plans emerged in this pattern fail for lack of the required transitional forms and claimed dynamics being actually observed to have effectiveness at the relevant level of functionally specific complexity. As well as, for want of an adequate mechanism on blind chance and mechanical necessity to explain FSCO/I -- once we do not impose ideological question begging. (Where, BTW, islands of complex, specific, organised function in config spaces are for real, with the case of protein clusters in AA sequence space being a highly relevant case in point of deeply isolated fold-function domains that include a great many with a small number of proteins relatively speaking, with deep structural isolation. And where search capacity: config space size drastically trends to negligibility as complexity advances beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. Thus, only the bulk of such a space can reasonably be blindly samples for the same reason that it is so hard to find needles lost in haystacks.) Most pivotal to all this, is that for OOL, there is no existing metabolic network, there is no existing code system or set of executing machinery, there is no von Neumann self replication facility, there is no existing gated encapsulation, there is no existing set of complex proteins and organisation to function, indeed it is v hard to get to reasonable concentrations of monomers, with the chirality problem to back that up, and cross-interference from other chemicals, and just plain water. On earth there is no good reason to assume an early reducing atmosphere and there are dual problems of oxygen-poisoning on one hand and UV degradation on the other. If one tries for comets or gas giant moons, one gets into serious speculative territory. So complex are the conundrums, that Orgel and Shapiro came to mutual ruin:

[[Shapiro:] RNA's building blocks, nucleotides contain a sugar, a phosphate and one of four nitrogen-containing bases as sub-subunits. Thus, each RNA nucleotide contains 9 or 10 carbon atoms, numerous nitrogen and oxygen atoms and the phosphate group, all connected in a precise three-dimensional pattern . . . . [[S]ome writers have presumed that all of life's building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case. A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus shows no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life . . . . To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth . . . . Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA . . . [[Orgel:] If complex cycles analogous to metabolic cycles could have operated on the primitive Earth, before the appearance of enzymes or other informational polymers, many of the obstacles to the construction of a plausible scenario for the origin of life would disappear . . . . It must be recognized that assessment of the feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility . . . few would believe that any assembly of minerals on the primitive Earth is likely to have promoted these syntheses in significant yield . . . . Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of [[for instance] the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [[8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [[6]? . . . Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . . The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.

The FSCO/I at the base of the living cell has only one empirically grounded vera causa valid causal explanation, design. So, at the root of the tree of life, absent ideological question-begging a prioris, it sits at the table as of right. Likewise, on the onward branching tree structure, we can take the typical reconstruction of our own origin as a good example of the unanswered problems lurking behind the bland assumption that blind chance and mechanical necessity adequately account for the branching tree pattern per descent with modification. For example here is Wells noting on some of these:

Most introductory biology textbooks carry draw-ings of vertebrate limbs showing similarities in their bone structures. Biologists before Darwin had noticed this sort of similarity and called it “homology,” and they attributed it to construction on a common archetype or design. In The Origin of Species, however, Darwin argued that the best explanation for homology is descent with modification, and he considered it evidence for his theory. Darwin’s followers rely on homologies to arrange fossils in branching trees that supposedly show ancestor-descendant relationships. In his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra compared the fossil record to a series of Corvette models: “If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.” [--> the notorious Berra's blunder where he overlooked how common design accounts for descent with mods, and of course we can extend to the blunder of failing to see that for instance it is fairly easy to put vehicles into a taxonomy on keys, leading to a branching tree pattern of cars, bicycles, ships, aircraft, submarines and the like, where we can directly parallel major life forms body plan patterns by looking at the way diverse vehicles fit such a pattern, driven by commercial survival in the marketplace and technological evolution across time . . . all by design. Should we, BTW, call this one KS' blunder?] . . . . Darwin’s theory really comes into its own when it is applied to human origins. While he scarcely mentioned the topic in The Origin of Species, Darwin later wrote extensively about it in The Descent of Man. “My object,” he explained, “is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties” – even morality and religion. According to Darwin, a dog’s tendency to imagine hidden agency in things moved by the wind “would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods.” Of course, the awareness that the human body is part of nature was around long before Darwin. But Darwin was claiming much more. Like materialistic philosophers since ancient Greece, Darwin believed that human beings are nothing more than animals . . . . Accord-ing to paleoanthropologist Misia Landau, theories of human origins “far exceed what can be inferred from the study of fossils alone and in fact place a heavy burden of inter-pretation on the fossil record – a burden which is relieved by placing fossils into pre-existing narrative structures.” [--> as in, there are some big questions that seem to be begged afoot] In 1996, American Museum of Natural History Curator Ian Tattersall acknowledged that “in paleoanthropology, the patterns we perceive are as likely to result from our uncon-scious mindsets as from the evidence itself.” Arizona State University anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote: “We select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions.” Clark suggested that “paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of science.” Biology students and the general public are rarely informed of the deep-seated uncertainty about human ori-gins that is reflected in these statements by scientific experts. Instead, they are simply fed the latest speculation as though it were a fact. And the speculation is typically illustrated with fanciful drawings of cave men, or pictures of human actors wearing heavy make-up.

As I went on to comment on the issue,

1 –> It is circular to define homology as resemblance due to evolutionary descent — as has often been done, e.g. Wiki: “homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different species. A common example of homologous structures in evolutionary biology are the wings of bats and the arms of primates” — then present homology as if it were factual proof of evolution. 2 –> This first fails to highlight that there are ever so many structures that are held to be independently and separately derived, as with the examples of multiple origins of flight, eyes, and echolocation in bats and whales. In short close resemblance is due to ancestry, except where it isn’t. Circularity and special pleading, presented while dressed up in the lab coat. 3 –> Similarly, a major duck-dodge is being done on accounting for the origin of required FSCO/I and particularly genetic info to account for the difference. Just 500 – 1,000 bits worth . . . i.e. 250 – 500 genetic base pairs, taxes the entire capability of blind chance and mechanical necessity across the solar system or the observed cosmos. 4 –> For example it has been commonly said that we are 98% similar in genome to chimps. But 2% of 3 billion base pairs, is 6 * 10^7, or 12 mn bits. And, with reasonable population sizes and generation times, as well as population genetics factors, this would require hundreds of millions of years and up, not the six million or so that are commonly held to be available. Assuming, that there is an incremental path. 5 –> In fact, to transform an ape-like ancestor into a human requires a huge reconstructive job, starting with posture, hanging of the head on the spine, angles of bones, creating linguistic capacity and speech organs co-ordinated with such, and more. 6 –> The number of intermediate steps required is huge, especially if we realise that on empirical genetic evidence, ~ 6 – 7 co-ordinated mutations at a time is an upper empirically plausible limit. So, transitionals from the implied ancestor to both the chimp and the modern man, should dominate the fossil forms and/or still be around. They simply are not — the screaming headlines of the past 150 years starting with Neanderthal, notwithstanding. Nor is the time that would be required. (Never mind convenient distractors on chromosome fusion events and whatnot, these are just red herrings compared to the real and unanswered challenge.) 7 –> Where, just on linguistic and closely linked rational ability, until a Darwinist can explain to you how — on observed empirical evidence not just so stories full of hypotheticals — by chance speech, language, and credible reasoning ability arose and have succeeded in accounting for our minds and their capacities to know, understand, reason and so forth, as well as consciousness, s/he refutes himself every time s/he opens the mouth to speak or keys in words on a keyboard or draws a meaningful drawing . . . A rock has no dreams and GIGO limited computation critically dependent on functionally specific organisation is not equal to conscious rational thought, insight and knowledge. 8 –> the broad-brush Darwinist sequence of reptile to mammal to ape to ape-man to man then collapses for the same basic reasons. There is no credible, properly empirically grounded incrementalist account of how the required body plan transformation changes can happen by blind chance and mechanical necessity without intelligent direction, so it is a strawman caricature — an argument from resemblance that ducks the real challenge of explaining the origin of required functional information of requisite complexity on available material resources and time on the usual timelines. . . .

So, from the root up, design is available as a serious alternative. Or, it should be . . . absent major ideological question-begging and notorious impositions, sometimes quite heavy-handed and even blatantly abusive. Meanwhile, let us remember that OOL is the root of the evolutionary materialist tree of life. Without a viable mechanism to get to the root, evo mat explanatory accounts, strictly, cannot get started. At least, without begging big questions. Thereafter, they thrive by ideological imposition, as Philip Johnson cautioned:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." [Emphasis added] . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

Thus, the root point is that there really is no good evo mat account for the tree of life, absent ideological question begging. Why is this important? KS' whole argument pivots on such an evo mat narrative being an adequate account. Apart from question-begging -- itself a fallacy -- it simply is not. (BTW, that's why after a year of being unanswered, on prodding when I was finally able to get a composite answer together from the circle of objectors, on the warrant for the evo mat narrative, it was so patently unsatisfactory. And, further BTW, early on in that year I stood Mr Theobald and Wikipedia in for the empty chair; their cases fall apart once the question-begging circles of a priori materialist impositions are challenged.) In addition, this from WJM is worth clipping in toto:

Ultimately, keiths asks the question of IDists (to paraphrase) – “why did the designer pick just one form of life and utilize just one lineage, when it could have utilized any number of alternate, non-nested systems?” - yet, keiths fails to ask the same question of the natural forces argument – why just one form of life, why one lineage, why one neat, nested hierarchy? Keiths attempted logical argument claims to make the same assumptions about both natural and artificial causal agencies – that natural forces and design are both capable of originating life and generating the evolutionary processes and patterns we find. However, this is obviously not the only assumption keiths makes when it comes to the “natural forces” side of the argument; he assumes that natural forces could not have generated anything other than a nested hierarchy leading back to a UCA when it comes to biological life forms. He simply asserts that this is what we should expect from natural forces and makes no case for it. If we provide the same assumptions on the ID side of the argument, then we must assume any designer could not have generated anything other than a nested hierarchy leading back to a UCA when it comes to biological life forms – which means that given the same assumptions on both sides of the ledger, keiths argument fails to produce a distinction between what we should expect to find if natural forces or if design agency generated life and evolution here on earth.

So, bottomline is that (a) evo mat -- neat little for argument assumptions notwithstanding -- cannot credibly and on good empirical warrant of causal capacity account for the tree of life/world of life absent major question-begging (b) the FSCO/I that is a major feature of life forms from cells to us is known empirically to have but one observed causal explanation, design, where it is utterly no coincidence in this context of debates that the number of observed cases in point establishing that causal connexion lies in the trillions. (c) As WJM et al pointed out, even if there were some mechanism for chance and necessity in Darwin's pond or the like to create life forms, there would be no good reason to see just one hierarchy on the assumptions of evo mat, i.e. the same knife cuts both ways even on KS' assumptions . . . it cannot distinguish apart from an unwarranted stipulation that evo mat will produce a tree pattern. (d) All along, it is commonly known that designers, if they wish to can and do use designs that fall into tree pattern hierarchies, so this issue would be inherently incapable of distinguishing design from non-design on basic inductive reasoning, where one goes for that which makes a difference between two hypotheses. (e) so, KS has assumed away the lack of evidence for the ability of evo mat mechanisms to get to OOL and thence the tree of life pattern, has failed to adequately answer the empirically grounded point that FSCO/I is such that the only (and routinely) observed cause is design, and he has put up a proposed issue about what designers can or would do or would be likely to do that runs counter tot he fact that designers do create sets of things that fall into branching tree taxonomy patterns and indeed can show descent with modifications in the context of an initial "sudden" appearance . . . the family of Corvettes, Berra's blunder notwithstanding, being a clear case in point. The actual fossil record interpreted on the usual timelines, of course, fits in with sudden appearances of basic forms, modifications and elaborations, then disappearance and/or continuity into the modern world. The argument by KS fails, for multiple reasons. But, predictably, the underlying a priori ideological framework will prop it up and it will be repeated endlessly. However, there is enough for the serious minded onlooker to spot the key unmet issues in the confidently presented "bomb" argument. Later, the real world calls. KF kairosfocus

The link above is stating your case..... Take note the tactic is exactly the same as what you employ..... Character assassination instead of stating the facts..... Why is this? Because letting of Darwinism is letting go of atheism.... and you lot just can't imagine that...... Andre

Perhaps Enkidu et al might want to give this a read? http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/6/718.full Andre

Enkidu What does rain have to do with the falsification of sexual selection? The failed Bateman experiments are not the only falsification there are other sources too.... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13535-have-peacock-tails-lost-their-sexual-allure.html But still the question remain, how does falsification of Darwinian sexual selection tie in with rain? Andre

Enkidu:

That’s right Andre. It didn’t rain last night on my street so that means all rain everywhere is falsified. Go have a cookie.

Rich gave the last one to Joe. Sorry, Andre. keith s

Keith an argument that does not address the actual premise to discuss is self-defeating. Even where you convince all at UD that what you said is true, you still did not address the Theory of Intelligent Design. You none the less have to start all over again for specifically "intelligent cause" type reciprocal cause not "a designer" religious entity that you operationally defined instead of a scientifically testable model with theory of operation to explain how the model works (or other reliable scientific method). Science has ways to separate out your religious bias, too. And for all our sake I have to make sure it's not wasted. At this point Keith you can at least say it's not all your fault. But your ID enablers only have to stop enabling, to make it clear that your argument was already defeated by not being precise enough for science. I would seriously hurry up and lighten up, before the weird scientific ways of ID drive you totally nuts: Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIYiGA_rIls Gary S. Gaulin

Andre We know Darwinian sexual selection has been falsified That's right Andre. It didn't rain last night on my street so that means all rain everywhere is falsified. Go have a cookie. Enkidu

Collin I wouldn’t expect a certain placental to have more genomic similarity to a certain marsupial than to other placentals. If something like that were to happen, wouldn’t you say that there has been at least a soft refutation of unguided evolution? Of course not. Finding the odd as yet unexplained outlier among a field of millions of pieces of consilient positive evidence doesn't make all those millions of pieces suddenly vanish. If you find major discrepancies across the board in all the consilence then you may have something. But you don't. Enkidu

Collin Although I have not really falsified evolution, I do note that whenever a qualified scientist expresses doubts about evolution, it does not get much of a peep in the news. BA77 quoted a highly respected French microbiologists. Also, in another UD post, a world-famous chemist, James M. Tour, says no one really understands how evolution is supposed to work, and there isn’t much news about it because he happens to believe in God. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com.....evolution/ When John Sanford, brilliant, highly-published botanist goes from darwinist, to theistic evolutionist, to IDer to young earth creationist and cites evidence in support, it also seems to not make ripples. That's because what a scientist no matter how qualified merely opines doesn't matter to the scientific community. All that matters is what he/she can demonstrate. Results that are written up, reviewed, and published. Ba77's buddies didn't demonstrate any problems with evolutionary theory. Tour is a chemist, basically no better than a layman when discussing genetics and biology. Sanford is the sad case of a once brilliant man who has slipped so far his current mental competence has been questioned. His evidence for YEC is atrociously bad, so much so that most of the scientific community pities him and doesn't want to embarrass him. One of many reasons ID has so little respect with scientists is because ID proponents are always bypassing proper scientific methodology in their political pursuits. All they do is write popular press books full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies. They never go through the hard work of getting their work critically vetted by other experts. The science community knows ID doesn't have a technical leg to stand on. ID knows it too. Enkidu

Hi Keith S I highly recommend this course, it will hopefully cure you from the unguided evolution did it blinkers you have on.... https://www.coursera.org/course/pcd Andre

Endiku, funny thing..... We know Darwinian sexual selection has been falsified, when they redid the Bateman experiments there was no evidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/29/11740.abstract Just one example...... there are many more..... PCD is of course one of those mechanism that Darwinian evolution will never ever be able to explain..... Can you try? Andre

Enkidu, I wouldn't expect a certain placental to have more genomic similarity to a certain marsupial than to other placentals. If something like that were to happen, wouldn't you say that there has been at least a soft refutation of unguided evolution? Collin

Keiths, I appreciate the quotation to science. I will take a look at it, no joke. Enkidu, Although I have not really falsified evolution, I do note that whenever a qualified scientist expresses doubts about evolution, it does not get much of a peep in the news. BA77 quoted a highly respected French microbiologists. Also, in another UD post, a world-famous chemist, James M. Tour, says no one really understands how evolution is supposed to work, and there isn't much news about it because he happens to believe in God. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ When John Sanford, brilliant, highly-published botanist goes from darwinist, to theistic evolutionist, to IDer to young earth creationist and cites evidence in support, it also seems to not make ripples. I must conclude that the prevailing paradigm is resistant to change. So we wouldn't expect much news anyway. Collin

In circles we go! Keith S please will you show us how unguided processes created a guided process to stop unguided processes from happening? Please Keith....... Andre

Collin at 81 said: We’d expect the tree of life by genome to match with the tree of life by phenome. Why in the world would you expect to see that? What would be your explanation for the remarkably different forms of the closely related Hawaiian Silver Sword Alliance? We don’t. Evolution = falsified. That's amazing. You're the third UD poster in the last 24 hours who has falsified evolution! Yet there's not a peep on the news or in the scientific literature anywhere! You guys need to hire Baghdad Bob as your PR man. :) Enkidu

Regarding this part of comment 87:

...and to reduce this to the order of 10-50 trees is analogous to an accuracy of measurement of approximately one part in 106.

The 106 should read 10^6, but the cut and paste didn't preserve the caret. keith s

logically_speaking,

Each method infers from existing data, each has strengths and weaknesses, each has underlying assumptions, and they are highly similar [only] when judged statistically. All this seems totally subjective to me, in other words they are using subjective means to try to get to an objective end. Is that possible? One last thing, why are phylogenies only SIMULAR statistically? If an objective nested hierarchy is true they would all be THE SAME. Think about it, there is only ONE HISTORY OF LIFE.

See the second part of my reply to Collin in #87. They're not expected to match exactly, but the degree to which they do match is extraordinary. keith s

The real weakness to Keith’s argument is that the pattern seen in life is not what we’d expect with unguided evolution. We’d expect the tree of life by genome to match with the tree of life by phenome. We don’t. Evolution = falsified.

In my opinion the science of phylogenetics is not able to make reliable predictions that pertain to "intelligence" and "intelligent cause", which to explain how they work requires cognitive science and systems biology. Gary S. Gaulin

Collin:

The real weakness to Keith’s argument is that the pattern seen in life is not what we’d expect with unguided evolution. We’d expect the tree of life by genome to match with the tree of life by phenome. We don’t. Evolution = falsified.

Theobald:

So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 1038 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the "twin nested hierarchy". This term is something of a misnomer, however, since there are in reality multiple nested hierarchies, independently determined from many sources of data.

Also, many IDers get hung up on the fact that cladograms don't always match perfectly. But they're not expected to always match perfectly. Theobald:

When two independently determined trees mismatch by some branches, they are called "incongruent". In general, phylogenetic trees may be very incongruent and still match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance (Hendy et al. 1984; Penny et al. 1982; Penny and Hendy 1986; Steel and Penny 1993). Even for a phylogeny with a small number of organisms, the total number of possible trees is extremely large. For example, there are about a thousand different possible phylogenies for only six organisms; for nine organisms, there are millions of possible phylogenies; for 12 organisms, there are nearly 14 trillion different possible phylogenies (Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). Thus, the probability of finding two similar trees by chance via two independent methods is extremely small in most cases. In fact, two different trees of 16 organisms that mismatch by as many as 10 branches still match with high statistical significance (Hendy et al. 1984, Table 4; Steel and Penny 1993). For more information on the statistical significance of trees that do not match exactly, see "Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic Trees". The stunning degree of match between even the most incongruent phylogenetic trees found in the biological literature is widely unappreciated, mainly because most people (including many biologists) are unaware of the mathematics involved (Bryant et al. 2002; Penny et al. 1982; Penny and Hendy 1986). Penny and Hendy have performed a series of detailed statistical analyses of the significance of incongruent phylogenetic trees, and here is their conclusion: "Biologists seem to seek the 'The One Tree' and appear not to be satisfied by a range of options. However, there is no logical difficulty in having a range of trees. There are 34,459,425 possible [unrooted] trees for 11 taxa (Penny et al. 1982), and to reduce this to the order of 10-50 trees is analogous to an accuracy of measurement of approximately one part in 106." (Penny and Hendy 1986, p. 414)

keith s

Collin,

William J. Murray, may I make a suggestion? Let’s have BA77 write up his most epic post ever. And then invite him to post it 5 times after every nonsensical comment. Let’s see how long this thread goes after that.

People are already used to scrolling past spamagain77's effluvia, so I don't think it will make a difference. keith s

PCD refutes you Keith....... You need to explain it using unguided processes Keith..... can you Keith? Andre

Keith S, "If my argument is incorrect, there must be at least one fatal flaw in it". Here's one (of the many), Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. Is a biochemist, not a biologist, so he is writing out of his field. Also his article is not in a "respectable peer reviewed publication". Lol sorry, even though that is all true please take it a a joke. I was going to give a serious answer but I think this bomb stuff has been beaten to death, so because my heart wasn't into finding another flaw in your argument (I already pointed out some problems with Theobald's Consensus Phylogenetic Tree), I got distracted with other stuff on the Internet and found some sites to bookmark, including Joes own blog. However having said all that I want to bring this point out, Theobald says, "Each method attempts to infer a phylogeny from existing data, and each has its respective strengths and weaknesses. Years of empirical testing and simulation have shown that, in general, these different algorithms, each with very different underlying assumptions, converge on trees that are highly similar when judged statistically". Each method infers from existing data, each has strengths and weaknesses, each has underlying assumptions, and they are highly similar [only] when judged statistically. All this seems totally subjective to me, in other words they are using subjective means to try to get to an objective end. Is that possible? One last thing, why are phylogenies only SIMULAR statistically? If an objective nested hierarchy is true they would all be THE SAME. Think about it, there is only ONE HISTORY OF LIFE. logically_speaking

William J. Murray, may I make a suggestion? Let's have BA77 write up his most epic post ever. And then invite him to post it 5 times after every nonsensical comment. Let's see how long this thread goes after that. Collin

How long are we going to have to wade through this unrelenting nonsense?

Unless a miracle happens I would estimate at least 10,000 more comments. Gary S. Gaulin

The real weakness to Keith's argument is that the pattern seen in life is not what we'd expect with unguided evolution. We'd expect the tree of life by genome to match with the tree of life by phenome. We don't. Evolution = falsified. Collin

William, I've rebutted your previous criticisms. Do you have a new one? keith s

How long are we going to have to wade through this unrelenting nonsense? William J Murray

The premise/definition for the theory of Intelligent Design states:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Note that it does not say "a designer" or other red-herring often used in its place. Gary S. Gaulin

I might as well repost this, too, because it's bound to come up again:

Box,

A final word on the matter.

I wish it were, but I have this sinking feeling that you’ll keep repeating the same mistakes.

It has been explained to you again in post #1116, that one cannot construct an argument with a premise, which assumes the capability of natural forces, that ID can win. IOW such a premise is unacceptable for ID.

Repeat your mistake as many times as you like. It’s still a mistake, and I’ve already explained why. You want to give ID an unfair advantage. I want to treat ID and unguided evolution equally, to see which one prevails on a level playing field. Of course that is “unacceptable” to you, because ID loses on a level playing field, and you don’t like that. You want to rig the game so that ID will win despite being an inferior hypothesis. That is unacceptable to any honest, science-minded person. Let me try once more to explain this to you. 1. “Unguided evolution produced the ONH” is a hypothesis. It might be true; it might be false. If it’s true, then unguided evolution must exist, and it must have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH. If it’s false, then either unguided evolution doesn’t exist (or was prevented from operating), or else it doesn’t have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH. 2. “A designer produced the ONH” is a hypothesis. It might be true; it might be false. If it’s true, then a designer must exist, and it must have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH. If it’s false, then either the designer doesn’t exist (or was prevented from operating), or else it doesn’t have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH. 3. We know that unguided evolution exists. Even the most rabid IDer/YEC will admit that antibiotic resistance can evolve, though there are people who actually believe that natural selection is a tautology, including UD President Barry Arrington, believe it or not. 4. We don’t know that the putative designer exists, so ID is already behind in the race. 5. We cannot prove that unguided evolution could accomplish every single step required to produce the ONH. That would require not only that we know every single step, which is impoosible — it would also require us to know unguided evolution’s capabilities well enough to decide if each step was within its reach. 6. We cannot prove that the designer could accomplish every single step required to produce the ONH. That would require not only that we know every single step, which is impoosible — it would also require us to know the designer’s capabilities well enough to decide if each step was within its reach. 7. If we assume that the ONH is out of unguided evolution’s reach, then of course unguided evolution cannot explain the ONH. 8. If we assume that the ONH is out of the designer’s reach, then of course ID cannot explain the ONH. 9. If we took that attitude, then we’d have to rule out both ID and unguided evolution! That would be a ridiculous conclusion, because one of them might actually be the correct explanation. 10. Are we stuck? Of course not. Instead of assuming that they don’t work, we can assume that they do. Then we can see if one of them fits the evidence better than the other. 11. If we take that approach and assume, temporarily and for the sake of argument alone, that unguided evolution is responsible for the diversity of life, we can see that unguided evolution predicts an objective nested hierarchy out of the trillions of possibilities. 12. If we take that approach and assume, temporarily and for the sake of argument alone, that the designer is responsible for the diversity of life, we can see that ID does does not predict an objective nested hierarchy out of the trillions of possibilities. We have treated ID and unguided evolution exactly the same, and evaluated them on a level playing field. If we assume that neither works, then of course neither can explain the ONH. If we assume that they do work, then unguided evolution makes a spectacularly successful, one in trillions prediction: the existence of the ONH. Meanwhile, ID falls flat on its face. None of the possibilities are ruled out, so under an ID hypothesis, we would expect with 99.999… % probability to find that there was not an objective nested hierarchy. If you treat them equally, unguided evolution blows ID out of the water. It isn’t even close. ID is a profoundly irrational position. I’m not sure I can make this any more obvious, Box. If you still don’t get it, I’m afraid it may be out of your reach.

keith s

Box The question I’m interested in. The question I put to you Keith is: if the Streambed Designer is also capable of designing 100 different artifacts (other than streambeds), does that make him 100 times less likely a cause than if it were the case that he only designs streambeds? For goodness sake Keith, address #41. You "designer makes other artifacts" is a gross misrepresentation of the actual argument offered. It doesn't require addressing since it has no relevance to the point being discussed. Enkidu

Hi Enkidu Gary S. Gaulin

Box One cannot assess ID on the narrow base of ONH alone. One cannot assess ID AT ALL when all ID does is make attacks on evolutionary theory. Except to conclude ID has no positive scientific case to make on its own. Enkidu

Now there is a Streambed Designer? You sure have a good imagination Keith. Gary S. Gaulin

Concentrate on what I wrote here:

There are trillions of possibilities for how a designer/Designer could arrange rocks, pebbles, grains of sand, and silt particles. Only a tiny fraction of a percent of those possibilities include arranges that look like natural streambeds.

keith s

Take a look at my “Natural Selector” example:

1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by Natural Selection. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Natural Selector?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

Gary S. Gaulin

For the record, Box: Do you seriously not understand that water is a much, much better explanation for the apparent streambed than a designer is? Seriously? If you don't, then I'm afraid this discussion may simply be out of your reach intellectually. I'm sorry -- I just don't know if I can simplify it any further than I already have. keith s

Keith: Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

The question I'm interested in. The question I put to you Keith is: if the Streambed Designer is also capable of designing 100 different artifacts (other than streambeds), does that make him 100 times less likely a cause than if it were the case that he only designs streambeds? For goodness sake Keith, address #41.

What I’m interested in is how the trillion enters the conclusion. Your examples in #62 deal with the question “what is the better theory?”, but I’m not interested in what the better theory for ONH is. I’m interested in how many times better.

Box

Box, you're showing ID in its true light: Gapsism. Rich

Keith, It has been explained to you several times. Again: VJTorley points out that there are far more basic facts about life that needs explaining than your ONH - such as proteins and genetic code. One cannot assess ID on the narrow base of ONH alone. IOW even if (arguendo) unguided evolution is a better explanation for ONH it does not follow that it is an explanation for proteins, genetic code, epigenetics, molecular machines, body plans et cetera. A simple truth that you are not able to grasp. Box

Box, Take a look at my "Streambed Designer" example:

1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

Note that it is actually possible that someone has painstakingly placed every pebble, grain of sand, and particle of silt in such a way that it appears that the streambed has been sculpted by running water. But is that the best explanation? No, and not by a long shot. Why? Because we have no reason to assume the existence of somebody (or Somebody) who bothered to create a pseudo-streambed far out in the desert. There are trillions of possibilities for how a designer/Designer could arrange rocks, pebbles, grains of sand, and silt particles. Only a tiny fraction of a percent of those possibilities include arranges that look like natural streambeds. Therefore, we recognize that a seeming streambed in the middle of the desert is more likely (trillions of times more likely) to be caused by flowing water than by a designer/Designer. I hope the parallel to the evolution/ID question is obvious. keith s

Also these two:

Hi Vincent, Last night I pointed to a major flaw in Douglas Axe’s protein experiment. I’m sure you get it, but today I thought of a good analogy for people who don’t understand the technical details: It’s as if Axe is arguing that you can’t drive from Milwaukee to Detroit, because if you draw a straight line between the two and follow it, you’ll run straight into Lake Michigan. (Axe’s argument is actually worse than that, but why flog a dead horse?)

And:

Hi Vincent, Continuing with the final paragraph of your comment:

But let’s be generous and grant that the existence of a (transcendent, cosmic) Designer is a priori improbable. Let’s even grant that the occurrence of natural and moral evils in the world makes the existence of this Designer unlikely.

Even the comparatively minor evil of the toilet paper problem (along with many, many others just like it) makes the existence of an omniGod unlikely.

Given that the number of events that have occurred in the history of the observable universe is 10^150 at most, using Laplace’s sunrise argument (which Wikipedia has an article on), we can see that even if every event in the history of the universe constituted evidence against the existence of a Designer, the a priori probability of a Designer would still be no lower than 1 in 10^150.

This doesn’t make sense to me. You seem to be assuming that all pieces of evidence have equal weight.

Since 10^1,1018 is much greater than 10^150, it follows that the argument from design trumps the argument from evil.

Koonin’s number is questionable, as I mentioned in my previous reply to you. Also, what does the argument from evil have to do with the existence of an OOL designer? The designer could be evil or indifferent, couldn’t he/she/it?

(The point I am making here is that the argument from evil is merely cumulative, hence the probabilities involved are additive; whereas the probabilities involved in the argument from design are multiplicative. Multiplication trumps addition.)

I don’t follow your reasoning here. Didn’t you say at one point that you were going to do an OP on the sunrise problem and its relation to ID? Anyway, although this is intriguing, I don’t see its relevance to my argument. As I’ve said, my argument concerns evolution after the origin of life, regardless of how that happened. Even if you could show that OOL required a designer, that wouldn’t show that subsequent evolution involved or required one.

keith s

Keith #62, For the third time: why don't you address my arguments in post #41? Tell me what is wrong with the mobile phone comparison. What I'm interested in is how the trillion enters the conclusion. Your examples in #62 deal with the question "what is the better theory?", but I'm not interested in what the better theory for ONH is. I'm interested in how many times better. In post #41, I argue that a trillion times better doesn't make any sense. Explain why the trillion should be in the conclusion. Or how it even gets there. Box

Box, I replied to vjtorley already:

Hi Vincent, You wrote:

I agree that the existence of a barrier needs to be demonstrated. It is my understanding that Douglas Axe’s work does just that, by showing that the odds of unguided processes stumbling upon a functional protein are comparable to the odds of finding a needle in a haystack. That’s a probabilistic barrier. If you think there’s something wrong with Axe’s calculations, then I’d be interested to hear why. I’d be even more interested to hear why you object to evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin’s calculation of 1 in 10^1,018 as the odds of life arising as a result of unguided processes, in the observable universe, during the time available.

I think Koonin’s number is highly questionable, but that actually makes no difference to my argument. As I explained yesterday, my argument is agnostic regarding OOL:

How life began is a separate question from how it evolved afterwards. This is easy to see. All four combinations are logically possible: 1. Life was created and evolution was guided. 2. Life was created and evolution was unguided. 3. Life arose naturally and evolution was guided. 4. Life arose naturally and evolution was unguided. The evidence being discussed in this thread rules out #1 and #3.

My argument works whether or not OOL happened naturally. As for Axe, there is a huge problem with his experiment. He takes two related but highly dissimilar enzymes and tries to determine how many nucleotides would have to change to get from the first enzyme’s function to the second’s. This is bogus, because no one claims that the second enzyme evolved from the first, or vice-versa. They are related, but that doesn’t mean that one evolved from the other. All it means is that they have a common ancestor. For Axe’s experiment to be successful, he would have needed to demonstrate that the two enzymes couldn’t have evolved from a common ancestor.

When arguing for the existence of an Intelligent Designer, ID makes as few assumptions as possible about the Designer, and about the Designer’s modus operandi. That is as it should be. However, when responding to a scientific objection to the hypothesis that life (or the universe) was designed, it is perfectly legitimate for an ID advocate to introduce an assumption about the Designer, in order to counter that objection. Provided the assumption in question is reasonably plausible, this is a fair argumentative tactic.

It isn’t enough for the assumption to be plausible. It has to be hugely more plausible than the alternatives, because that is the only way to counteract the trillions to one advantage that unguided evolution already has. Your efficiency constraint doesn’t meet that high bar, because it’s just as plausible to assume (for instance) that the designer is powerful enough that he doesn’t need to bother about efficiency.

Note that this does not commit Intelligent Design to the assumption in question; that would only follow if it could be shown that no alternative assumption could rebut the objection to the existence of a Designer.

ID would be committed to some assumption that was so overwhelmingly plausible as to offset the trillions-to-one advantage of unguided evolution. Otherwise it would lose the race.

That depends on what phenomena one is examining. Unguided evolution provides a very good explanation for the existence of objective nested hierarchies in Nature, and if this were the only salient fact to be explained, it would win as a hypothesis. But the existence of proteins and of a genetic code are arguably far more basic facts about life, which unguided evolution completely fails to explain, and the margin of difference here is much greater than trillions to one: it is 10^1,018 to one for life, and (10^164)^x to one, for a biological structure (e.g. a molecular machine) containing x 150-amino-acid proteins.

Again, OOL is irrelevant to my argument, which works regardless of how life originated.

Finally, I’d like to draw your attention to a comment of Box’s:

Keith, questioning capabilities is something else then questioning existence. I questioned the capabilities of unguided evolution. You ‘retaliated’ by questioning the existence of the designer (instead of the designer['s] capability).

I think this is a very telling point.

I responded to that point here:

No, I questioned both the existence and the capabilities of the designer:

Because ID can’t explain the evidence unless you assume that there was a designer on the scene and you assume that the designer had the necessary capabilities.

And the only reason you didn’t question the existence of unguided evolution is because we both know that it exists. Even IDers accept that microevolution can be unguided.

I need to get to bed, so I’ll respond to the final part of your comment tomorrow.

I have to go now. Talk to you later.

See you later.

keith s

Box, Your confusion about the digital camera vs mobile phone is best addressed by this earlier comment of mine:

Just to hammer my point home, here is a comment of mine from TSZ:

Some more questions for the ID supporters out there: 1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? 2. Bob is invited to the scene of an investigation by a friend who is an explosive forensics expert. They observe serious damage radiating out in all directions from a central point, decreasing with distance, as if an explosion had taken place. Bob’s friend performs some tests and finds large amounts of explosive residue. Bob says, “Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make it look like there was an explosion here. They even planted explosive residue on the scene! Of course, there wasn’t really an explosion.” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? 3. Bob and another friend, an astronomer, observe the positions of the planets over several years. They determine that the planets are moving in ellipses, with the sun at one of the foci. Bob says, “Isn’t that amazing? The angels pushing the planets around are following exactly the paths that the planets would have followed if gravity had been acting on them!” The astronomer gives Bob a funny look and says “Maybe gravity is working on those planets, with no angels involved at all. Doesn’t that seem more likely to you?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? 4. Bob is hanging out at the office of a friend who is an evolutionary biologist. The biologist shows Bob how the morphological and molecular data establish the phylogenetic tree of the 30 major taxa of life to an amazing accuracy of 38 decimal places. “There couldn’t be a better confirmation of unguided evolution,” the biologist says. “Don’t be ridiculous,” Bob replies. “All of those lifeforms were clearly designed. It’s just that the Designer chose to imitate unguided evolution, instead of picking one of the trillions of other options available to him.” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend? Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why. And ponder this: If you are an ID supporter, then you are making exactly the same mistake as Bob does in the four examples above, using the same broken logic. Isn’t that a little embarrassing? It might be time to rethink your position.

And don’t forget the Rain Fairy.

keith s

KF, Your reply to Box contains a number of very basic errors. It appears that you don't understand this stuff at all. You wrote:

Box, and if the designer(s) of life on earth chose to use a common architecture and to design on mostly a tree pattern...

A designer could use a "common architecture" and "mostly a tree pattern" without producing an objective nested hierarchy. Have you read my OP? Now, you could continue to ad hoc assumptions until you had limited the possible outcomes so that they match observation -- but what justifies those assumptions? It's as silly as invoking the Rain Fairy to explain the weather, and then adding ad hoc assumptions until the Rain Fairy's actions match actual observations.

blah blah blah FSCO/I blah blah solar system resources blah blah islands of function ...

Your 'islands of function' rhetoric has long since been refuted: Things That IDers Don’t Understand, Part 2a – Evolution is not stranded on ‘islands of function' Also, Denyse helpfully pointed us to Andreas Wagner's research, which also blows your 'islands of function' claims out of the water.

With, that in fact it is an utter commonplace to see a nested hierarchy type classification of unquestionably designed objects, or even, descent across generations with modification by design?

But not an objective nested hierarchy. Did you even read Theobald and my OP? See vjtorley's thread if you need additional help understanding this. keith s

Keith: As Enkidu points out, you’ve completely misunderstood my argument.

Adress the objections stated in post #41. Explain why mobile phones cannot take pictures. BTW Enkidu obviously did not read your OP, nor did he understand your argument.

Keith: You might want to reread my OP and the comments in that thread.

No, not at all, thank you. Why don't you adress my arguments in post #41?

Keith: You can also read vjtorley’s OP from last year on the subject. He does an excellent job of explaining my argument, and because he understands it, he recognizes that it is a serious challenge to ID that must be addressed.

Don't be a fool, VJTorley rendered your argument irrelevant:

VJTorley #1206: Unguided evolution provides a very good explanation for the existence of objective nested hierarchies in Nature, and if this were the only salient fact to be explained, it would win as a hypothesis. But the existence of proteins and of a genetic code are arguably far more basic facts about life, which unguided evolution completely fails to explain, and the margin of difference here is much greater than trillions to one: it is 10^1,018 to one for life, and (10^164)^x to one, for a biological structure (e.g. a molecular machine) containing x 150-amino-acid proteins.

Box

KS: The already linked has answers you refuse to acknowledge or face. But my just above directed to Box can also be seen as applicable to you. However, at this juncture, I have no expectation whatsoever that any argument regardless of warrant, will move you -- though, it would be nice for you to show a different face. I therefore simply note for the fair minded onlooker, fully expecting pretence that no answer has been given, probably taken as an excuse for churlish remarks by the circle who have indulged such for several days. Please, do better, please prove me wrong. KF kairosfocus

Box, and if the designer(s) of life on earth chose to use a common architecture and to design on mostly a tree pattern, what does that have to do with that FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of design and is only known to be caused by design? With, that such FSCO/I is a major characteristic of life? With, that at no point has there been a good empirical demonstration of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity giving rise to FSCO/I? With, that the search space vs solar system resources challenge is such that the possible search: space ratio makes it maximally implausible to stumble on islands of function manifesting FSCO/I by such blind, brute force approaches? With, that in fact it is an utter commonplace to see a nested hierarchy type classification of unquestionably designed objects, or even, descent across generations with modification by design? With, that my first acquaintance with the biological scheme of classifications was to observe such applied to paper fasteners . . . patently designed objects, applied BTW as a means to teach classification on keys as believe it or not in some cases a bio lab exercise? And more? KF kairosfocus

lifepsy, You're making the same errors as drc466. See my reply to him. keith s

KF, While you're here, don't forget my challenge. keith s

bornagain77 @ 38, Thanks for the reference to Didier Raoult's paper. Fascinating and pretty much devastating to the common descent herd if they spent as much time researching it as they spend mocking it.

Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.

Ouch! Talk about Darwinists being unwilling to recognize the evidence. One would hope that they would be even remotely curious.

Comparative genome analysis shows not only a substantial level of plasticity in the gene repertoire, but also provides evidence that nearly all genes, including ribosomal genes, have been exchanged or recombined at some point in time.

With the ID paradigm, one would of course would assume that there's an intelligently designed mechanism behind this observation and pursue it. Darwinists would fight it. Considering the vituperation in response on Dr. Hunter's website, the "black knights" there might not have any arms or legs but they sure can bite. -Q Querius

Box, As Enkidu points out, you've completely misunderstood my argument. You might want to reread my OP and the comments in that thread. You can also read vjtorley's OP from last year on the subject. He does an excellent job of explaining my argument, and because he understands it, he recognizes that it is a serious challenge to ID that must be addressed. He attempts to address it by adding assumptions to ID, like his "Economy of Effort Principle". I think his attempt fails, but I give him credit for acknowledging the issue and tackling it forthrightly instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't exist, as some of you are doing. keith s

In my No Bomb After 10 Years post I noted that after 10 years of debating origins I had never encountered a “science bomb” that would disabuse me of my ID position.

Barry, do you realize that satisfying you is not a measure of the scientific quality of ID? Daniel King

WS, your ad hom is groundless, and it is obvious there have been a couple of hours opportunity to discuss substance right here, ducked in haste to falsely accuse and poison the atmosphere. Translated: the actual merits are not as you pretend, perhaps especially in the face of having to deal with cases in point shown by illustrations, starting with an ABU 6500 C3 fishing reel. KF kairosfocus

Enkidu: It’s not any designer multifunctionality that’s an issue. It’s the trillion arbitrary ways the single function could be ID implemented. Disagree with Keith’s argument if you like but at least represent it properly.

Did you bother to read Keith's OP at the skeptical zone? I did. Contrary to your claim, the versatility of the designer is central to Keith's argument. He argues that are trillion options available. [sarc] All very scientific numbers. [/sarc]

Keith: The options open to a Creator are enormous. Only a minuscule fraction of them give rise to an objective nested hierarchy of the kind that we see in nature. In the face of this fact, the only way for a creationist to argue for common design is to stipulate that the Creator must have chosen one of these scant few possibilities out of the (literally) trillions available.

Box

E: That there's more than one way to skin a catfish has utterly nothing relevant to do with recognising on signs sitting there in front of us, that this cat's done been skinned. Or, in short, the empirically tested reliable signs of design, such as functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (for which there genuinely are trillions of observed cases) when present, per canons of inductive reasoning strongly warrant the conclusion on sign, design. There may be many ways to design, and more to effect it, but to recognise that twerdun, all we need is the known, reliable sign. In short, KS' argument is a fallacy of irrelevancy, apart from that it begs several big questions as WJM and I as well as others, have pointed out. But, until selective hyperskepticism regarding anything that points to design and correlated hyper credulity for what objectors wish to be so, is addressed there will be no acknowledgement of any pro design argument, regardless of how strong. Indeed, again and again we have seen objectors to design thought climbing all over the walls to find objections to self evident first principles of right reason, in a context that strongly suggests the mere fact that design thinkers support such is reason enough to react in a polarised way. It is time to do better than that. KF kairosfocus

drc466:

So, you are arguing that tree contains every known species? Nice.

drc466, You see how "Theobald's Figure 1" is underlined in my comment? That means it's a hyperlink. You can actually click on it! Like magic, your browser will then take you to Theobald's Figure 1, which you can inspect at your leisure. When you do, you will see that it represents the 30 major taxa of life.

They are “subjective” in the true definition of the word because the people creating the trees picked and chose which attributes to use when placing species: “subjective”. As I stated, Theobald uses a statistical definition for objective, not a dictionary one (e.g. “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:”). Example: If I used “reproductive system” as my “objective” primary rule for species placement, it wouldn’t look anything like the Trees evolutionists create. Therefore, said trees are NOT “unbiased”.

You're confused about how cladograms are inferred. They are based on derived characters, and the order in which the derived characters are applied is not arbitrary. The order is chosen so that the resulting cladogram satisfies a constraint, such as maximum parsimony or maximum likelihood. It's objective. Have you even read Theobald?

Your entire premise is that the Trees of Life created are statistically ONH’s, and therefore must be Phylogenetic (UCD). If you don’t assume ONH = UCD, then by the Symmetric property we can’t assume UCD = ONH, and you have no reason to prefer UCD over any other theory, because all those other “trillions” of non-ONH’s might also show UCD.

I don't assume "ONH = UCD". An ONH could also be produced by separate creation via common design, and I examine that possibility. The problem for ID is that there are trillions of other possible patterns that could be produced via common design, while for unguided, gradual evolution with primarily vertical inheritance, an ONH is the only possibility. Unguided evolution predicts an ONH, out of trillions of other possibilities. ID doesn't predict an ONH -- unless you assume, ad hoc, that the designer is an evolution mimic. ID therefore loses. I also don't assume that "UCD equals ONH". It definitely does not. Guided evolution need not produce an ONH, which is why my argument is effective not only against creationists but also against guided evolutionists. Haven't you read my OP? I cover this quite explicitly:

What about our third subset of IDers — those who accept the truth of common descent but believe that intelligent guidance is necessary to explain macroevolution? The evidence is a problem for them, too, despite the fact that they accept common descent. The following asymmetry explains why: the discovery of an objective nested hierarchy implies common descent, but the converse is not true; common descent does not imply that we will be able to discover an objective nested hierarchy. There are many choices available to a Designer who guides evolution. Only a tiny fraction of them lead to a inferable, objective nested hierarchy. The Designer would have to restrict himself to gradual changes and predominantly vertical inheritance of features in order to leave behind evidence of the kind we see.

drc466:

And….with that I ride off from the BK with everyone else.

Except that you can't ride off, because it's you who is missing his limbs, not the Black Knight. keith s

AF, of course refuses to acknowledge that the Durston et al work exists, that Yockey et al have done work, or that the common H-metric SUM pi log pi, suitably modified to reflect functional specificity, would be reasonable. Or, even that functional files commonly seen in computer systems are measured routinely on the number of Y/N questions required to specify used states. For utterly simple instance, an ASCII character in text is commonly known to require seven y/n q's to specify, and this leads to a metric of info storage. Namecalling a reasonable and standard procedure as bogus simply shows the hyperskepticism, churlishness, hostile closed mindedness, rage and more we are -- sadly -- dealing with. Surely, this matter can be addressed by objectors at a better level. KF kairosfocus

Box Keith argues that multifunctionality by the designer (or by mobile phones) has a hugely negative effect on the probability of being a cause. His reasoning simply doesn’t make sense. No he doesn't. It's not any designer multifunctionality that's an issue. It's the trillion arbitrary ways the single function could be ID implemented. Disagree with Keith's argument if you like but at least represent it properly. Enkidu

Enkidu, You made "much more probable" up. My summation, in post #41, is spot on. From Keith's OP at the skeptical zone:

And because unguided evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of the kind we actually observe in nature, out of the trillions of alternatives available to a Designer who guides evolution, it is literally trillions of times better than ID at explaining the evidence.

Keith argues that multifunctionality by the designer (or by mobile phones) has a hugely negative effect on the probability of being a cause. His reasoning simply doesn't make sense. Box

beau:

You guys are punching a steel plate anticipating tears by continuing to argue this with Keith.

You're right, beau. They need something better than bare fists if they want to put a dent in a thick steel plate. keith s

Box 1) a digital camera explains a picture 2) a mobile phone explains a picture, but also 100 other things. Therefore a digital camera is a 100 times better at explaining a picture. That was not how the Keith S. argument goes. The real argument is 1) There are a trillion different arbitrary patterns ID could produce 2) There is only one possible pattern evolution through common descent can produce. 3) The fossil and genetic records show the one pattern that matches evolution through common descent. That makes evolution through common descent much more probable. Enkidu

You guys are punching a steel plate anticipating tears by continuing to argue this with Keith. beau

keith s #15

1. The cladograms are not “incomplete and contrary”. Theobald’s Figure 1 is rightly captioned “The Consensus Phylogenetic Tree of All Life”. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1

The diagram is subjective right from the start in the choice of traits to make it a better sell. Why not include camera eyes? Well because Theobald would have had to write it in two different locations which would look awkward. So instead he opts for the vague nesting of "organs" The nodes and branches, (everything about the diagram that suggests Common Descent) is imaginary data. It is also quite plastic, and could have been rearranged many different ways if the data had demanded it. Why must digits have evolved after jaws instead of the other way around? Why can't feathers or hair evolve independently in multiple lineages? Evolution has no such constraints... it merely accommodates the data available. Nothing about this nested hierarchy exclusively demonstrates Universal Common Descent, because UCD could accommodate all sorts of rearrangements and even contradictions. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them. Evolution does not predict a hierarchical pattern. Simple processes of loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit such a pattern. Since hierarchical patterns (such as cladograms or phenograms) are not predicted by evolution they are not evidence for evolution. In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed. There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process. If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature’s divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity. lifepsy

Keith, your argument contains many errors. I have pointed them out here This time I want to highlight a logical error in your conclusion: At one point in your argument you arrive here:

1) Unguided evolution explains X 2) A designer explains X, but also a trillion of alternatives. Therefore unguided evolution is a trillion times better as an explanation for X.

The way the trillion finds its way into the conclusion doesn't make any sense. Maybe a comparison will clear things up for you: Suppose we observe a picture on a computer screen. This photo can be explained by a digital camera or by a mobile phone. Suppose that a digital camera's sole function is taking pictures. The mobile phone can also take pictures, but has a hundred other functions.

1) a digital camera explains a picture 2) a mobile phone explains a picture, but also 100 other things. Therefore a digital camera is a 100 times better at explaining a picture.

Does the multifuntionality of the mobile phone warrant a conclusion that a digital camera is a hundred times better as an explanation for the photo on a computer screen? Does the digital camera get an even better explanation when new apps are added to the mobile phone? Box

Phil, I caught a glimpse of "Mr Fox" but my scroll finger was too quick for you! :) Alan Fox

KF writes:

And BTW, AF, brazenly declaring that quantitative metrics don’t exist [with working, indeed in peer reviewed literature for biology cases, and/or suggesting hyperskeptically that the common way to measure functionally specific files (just look at file lists on a PC) is suddenly deeply suspect when an ID thinker uses it, or that the math has not been done even after several corrections to the contrary, is itself revealing of this problem.

Show us your work. Where is there a CSI calculation other than your bogus nonsense manipulating a simple count of a sequence of amino acids? Alan Fox

The following paper was interesting for 'who' wrote it:

A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - Didier Raoult - May 2010 Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html

Didier Raoult, who authored the preceding paper, has been referred to as 'Most Productive and Influential Microbiologist in France'.,,, He has said, in no ambiguous terms, that Darwin’s theory is wrong.

The "Most Productive and Influential Microbiologist in France" Is a Furious Darwin Doubter - March 2012 Excerpt: Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/the_most_produc057081.html

This following paper was interesting for what it found, and also was interesting for what was happening on the day that it was released:.

Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

What else is interesting is that this, 'annihilation' of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed 'world leading expert' on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was 'Intelligently Designed' for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year. :) bornagain77

Mr. Fox @ 17

drc466 wrote,

Meanwhile, empirical evidence of chance/law producing CSI/novelty/macro-evolution/whatever you want to call it still remains absent. To which the evolutionist’s only response is to deny there is a difference between complex/simple, specified/unspecified, up/down, add/subtract, new/old, live/dead, sandcastles/piles of sand.

Let’s see those CSI calculations. Please show your work. All IDers, please. This is open to anyone!

CSI calculations for what? drc466's claim is completely true.

"Meanwhile, empirical evidence of chance/law producing CSI/novelty/macro-evolution/whatever you want to call it still remains absent.

There is ZERO empirical evidence that Darwinian processes can produce even a single protein of functional complexity/information. This point is made clear in even the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution

Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting - Michael Behe - November 21, 2013 Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture -- a cumulative total of trillions of cells -- has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that's equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski's project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,, ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html

Even the 'emergent' ability to digest citrate in Lenski's e-coli, which Darwinists were quick to tout as proof of that unguided Darwinian processes could generate functional information/complexity, turned out to be a pre-existing ability that the bacteria already possessed:

Innovation or Renovation? By Ann Gauger - Sept. 24, 2012 Excerpt: But how significant was this innovation (citrate; Lenski)? In his paper in Quarterly Review of Biology, Dr. Michael Behe pointed out that E. coli was already capable of using citrate for anaerobic growth (when no oxygen was available). He postulated that a change in gene regulation could turn on citrate transport and permit growth on citrate under aerobic conditions. After an enormous amount of work, having sequenced the genomes of many clones along the lineages that led to the ability to use citrate, as well as lineages that never did, and testing the phenotypes of identified mutations, Blount et al. have now reported that Behe was largely right. The key innovation was a shift in regulation of the citrate operon, caused by a rearrangement that brought it close to a new promoter. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/32246480851/innovation-or-renovation?og=1

Thus what functional complexity/information does Mr. Fox want a calculation for? There are simply no new functional proteins generated by unguided Darwinian processes to which he can appeal so as to be to do the calculation. Moreover, Lenski's e-coli is not alone. Behe surveyed four decades of lab work here and not a single protein of functiona complexity/information was generated:

“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/

As well, despite the fact that HIV and malaria have greatly exceeded the total number of mammals since mammals originated, no new functional proteins have been generated in HIV or malaria...

A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution

You would think that with such a stunning lack of empirical confirmation in the lab, that keith s would have some fairly stunning evidence from the fossil record and genetics to back up up his claim that the fossil record and genetics confirm unguided Darwinian processes to be true 'trillions' of times better that ID. That simply is not the case. The fossil record and genetic evidence are both almost as bad, if not as bad, as the laboratory evidence is in confirming Darwinism to be true. Although I could produce numerous quotes from leading paleontologists saying that the fossil record does not conform to Darwin's predicted pattern for a tree of life, this fairly recent study of the fossil record goes one better and shows us that the fossil reord is actually upside-down, 'on its head', to what Darwin predicted.

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-scientific-evolution.html

That 'on its head' pattern for the fossil record is certainly not 'trillions of times better' than what 'top down' implementation of Design would predict! The predictions for unguided Darwinian processes do not fair any better when faced with the evidence from genetics. Casey Luskin did an overview of the genetic evidence here:

Logged Out - Scientists Can't Find Darwin's "Tree of Life" Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin - Winter 2013 Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors. Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,, Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance: • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."6 • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."7 • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."8 Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled "Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life."9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that "the holy grail was to build a tree of life," but "today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence." According to the article, "many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.",,, Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: "We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?" ,,, "battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life," leaving readers with a stark assessment: "Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."10,,, A 2012 paper noted that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception," since "incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."12,,, http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo27/logged-out.php

Moreover, this confict in genetic data persists even though Darwinists severely manipulate the date to try to arrive at their predetermined conclusion:

Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush - May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.” The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,, ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this? http://crev.info/2013/05/darwins-tree-of-life-is-a-tangled-bramble-bush/ That Yeast Study is a Good Example of How Evolutionary Theory Works - Cornelius Hunter - June 2013 Excerpt:,,, The evolutionists tried to fix the problem with all kinds of strategies. They removed parts of genes from the analysis, they removed a few genes that might have been outliers, they removed a few of the yeast species, they restricted the analysis to certain genes that agreed on parts of the evolutionary tree, they restricted the analysis to only those genes thought to be slowly evolving, and they tried restricting the gene comparisons to only certain parts of the gene. These various strategies each have their own rationale. That rationale may be dubious, but at least there is some underlying reasoning. Yet none of these strategies worked. In fact they sometimes exacerbated the incongruence problem. What the evolutionists finally had to do, simply put, was to select the subset of the genes or of the problem that gave the right evolutionary answer. They described those genes as having “strong phylogenetic signal.” And how do we know that these genes have strong phylogenetic signal. Because they give the right answer. This is an example of a classic tendency in science known as confirmation bias.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/that-yeast-study-is-good-example-of-how.html

RNAs are just as, if not more, uncooperative with Darwinian presuppostitions as the genetic evidence is. RNAs are 'tearing apart traditional ideas':

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution - Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. - Elie Dolgin - 27 June 2012 Excerpt: “I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. "...they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist - Kevin Peterson) Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says. Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong. http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

bornagain77

KF wtites:

PS: I link from the OP here, here and also here; a substantial discussion can easily enough be had on the merits of fact and logic if there is any genuine interest. Prediction: none such will happen.

Prediction confirmed Comments are closed on the three linked threads! :) HT AB Alan Fox

KF, If you aren't afraid of open discussion, as you claim, then let's have one right here. Let me repeat my challenge:

kairosfocus, If my argument is incorrect, there must be at least one fatal flaw in it. Can you identify one, instead of frantically trying to change the subject, or posting another “FYI-FTR” with comments disabled to prevent open discussion?

keith s

*yawn* Joe. Have a cookie. Rich

KF at 20: "PS: I link from the OP here, here and also here; a substantial discussion can easily enough be had on the merits of fact and logic if there is any genuine interest. Prediction: none such will happen." For once I fully agree with KF; substantial discussions will not be made on the OPs you linked to. That tends to happen when someone cowardly prevents or stops comments, on all three OPs. Barry, a "wise" man once said that scoffing is a poor form of argumentation. I believe that it was the same person who wrote the current OP that scoffs at anti-ID arguments by posting a Monty Python skit. william spearshake

Rich:

So Joe, is it your contention that there was a tinkerer designer making millions upon millions of to all lines of life across millions and millions of years?

That doesn't follow from what I posted. And your position can't get beyond prokaryotes even when given starting populations of prokaryotes. You need to work on your own before you bother with us. Only cowards do it your way. Joe

Rich @14: So, using phylogenetic analyses on complete, local, limited and known ancestors and descendants = validation for using same analyses on hypothetical, mostly incomplete trees composed primarily of unknown ancestors and transitional forms? I had forgotten the evolutionist' fondness for unwarranted extrapolation, my apologies. Keith s @16:

1. The cladograms are not “incomplete and contrary”. Theobald’s Figure 1 is rightly captioned “The Consensus Phylogenetic Tree of All Life”.

So, you are arguing that tree contains every known species? Nice. And if there's only 1 tree, and not contrary trees - so much for his "Consilience of Independent Phylogenies", eh? Make up your (his) mind!

2. They are also not “subjective”. Theobald makes the difference clear here.

They are "subjective" in the true definition of the word because the people creating the trees picked and chose which attributes to use when placing species: "subjective". As I stated, Theobald uses a statistical definition for objective, not a dictionary one (e.g. "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:"). Example: If I used "reproductive system" as my "objective" primary rule for species placement, it wouldn't look anything like the Trees evolutionists create. Therefore, said trees are NOT "unbiased".

3. I do not assume that “ONH = UCD”. My argument works against creationists, common designists, and guided evolutionists alike.

Sure you do. Your entire premise is that the Trees of Life created are statistically ONH's, and therefore must be Phylogenetic (UCD). If you don't assume ONH = UCD, then by the Symmetric property we can't assume UCD = ONH, and you have no reason to prefer UCD over any other theory, because all those other "trillions" of non-ONH's might also show UCD. And....with that I ride off from the BK with everyone else. drc466

So Joe, is it your contention that there was a tinkerer designer making millions upon millions of to all lines of life across millions and millions of years? Rich

The Theobald paper does NOT support unguided evolution. It only tries to support Universal Common Descent. Phylogenetics, in an ID framework, would take the similarity to be part of the common design with the differences being related to the different requirements of the organisms. However universal common descent needs to start with trying to figure out what makes an organism what it is. Our we a sum of our genome? That seems doubtful. And if we are not then changes to the genome cannot account for the diversity of life. You guys rushed to the finish without even realizing if you had the right mechanisms for the race. And you still don't know. Joe

Richie is keeping his coherent arguments in a safe place. That could mean they are with the alleged theory of evolution. As for keith s, Darwin refuted his argument in 1859 and Denton did it in 1985. Is the twist with numbers just a coincidence? Joe

drc466, Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the theobald paper was setting up a strawman to defeat. What alternative model should someone use to compare common descent with an ID hypothesis? wd400

KS: That you find yourself forced to misrepresent a FTR linked to and from a live discussion and plainly stating in its opening words: >> I was just challenged to reply to the KS “bomb” claim, and though I am busy, I will pause to note briefly, and will link this FYI-FTR to the thread of discussion where the challenge was made. >> . . . speaks volumes on the want of substance in your response, as well as basic disrespect for the patent truth. Nothing I have done prevents serious discussion, so kindly drop the misrepresentations. KF kairosfocus

And what, exactly, is your argument, Rich? And keith s, shut up, your argument is dead. You have nothing left to say but repeat your ignorance. Why bother? Do you need proof you should be committed to an asylum? Joe

Hi KF. Don't close comments here, I don't thin Barry would approve? Are you motive mongering in your post? Didn't you give some 'sage' words about that before? Again, when you think FIASCO is ready for prime time, we've got data sets ready for you to test it against. You know, if its a real science thing not just a talking point... Rich

kairosfocus, If my argument is incorrect, there must be at least one fatal flaw in it. Can you identify one, instead of frantically trying to change the subject, or posting another "FYI-FTR" with comments disabled to prevent open discussion? keith s

Joe, your lack of comprehension should not be confused with a lack of coherence. ;) Rich

Has any one else noticed that neither Rich nor Alan even attempt to make coherent arguments? At least keith s tried. Joe

Rich: There's any number of UD threads where discussion on the merits can continue, but right now I have no time to deal with further let's dump trifecta fallacy rhetorical garbage on our neighbour's lawn trollishness slander tactics as several objectors have been doing over the past few days. Onlookers can see for themselves (a) KS' tactic failed on multiple levels, (b) to overturn the design inference on FSCO/I as reliable sign what is needed is reliable counter example not schoolyard taunt namecalling, (c) after years of repeated failure to provide such [including the evolving clocks on youtube put up by someone who didn't understand what it takes to mesh and align gears . . . ) all sorts of evasions, obfuscations and smear tactics backed up by ideological impositions and question-begging have become the Darwinist stock in trade, with countless examples. A sad, telling picture. Black Knight taunt is fully justified. KF PS: I link from the OP here, here and also here; a substantial discussion can easily enough be had on the merits of fact and logic if there is any genuine interest. Prediction: none such will happen. And BTW, AF, brazenly declaring that quantitative metrics don't exist [with working, indeed in peer reviewed literature for biology cases, and/or suggesting hyperskeptically that the common way to measure functionally specific files (just look at file lists on a PC) is suddenly deeply suspect when an ID thinker uses it, or that the math has not been done even after several corrections to the contrary, is itself revealing of this problem. kairosfocus

Alan, I and others posted a peer-reviewed paper that does those calculations wrt biology. Grow up. And keith s- your argument has been refuted. Your denial means nothing to us but it is entertaining. Joe

Box,

The number of deficiencies in Keith’s argument is not yet surpassed by the number of times that he declares it to be a bomb.

If it's riddled with flaws, then it should be easy to refute. Go to it, Box. Dazzle me with your refutation. keith s

drc466 wrote here

Meanwhile, empirical evidence of chance/law producing CSI/novelty/macro-evolution/whatever you want to call it still remains absent. To which the evolutionist’s only response is to deny there is a difference between complex/simple, specified/unspecified, up/down, add/subtract, new/old, live/dead, sandcastles/piles of sand.

Let's see those CSI calculations. Please show your work. All IDers, please. This is open to anyone! Alan Fox

drc466 @ 5, that was very succinctly put! Hope you don't mind if I post it on facebook Darwinian Debating Tactic #17: “The Black Knight Taunt” - November 3, 2014 Excerpt: "Keith s (via Theobald) uses a subjective, statistical analyses of incomplete and contrary “trees of life” to show that they meet the statistical definition of an objective nested heirarchy (ONH), with the assumption that an ONH = UCD (Universal Common Descent). Keith s fails to acknowledge the subjectiveness or weakness of the trees so analyzed, the weakness of using purely statistical analyses, and most fatally fails to prove the assumption that ONH = UCD, or that ID has equal probability of 1= ONH. He then loudly proclaims victory, screaming epithets at the retreating backs of those who’ve chopped his legs off." https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/ddd/darwinian-debating-tactic-18-the-black-knight-taunt/#comment-525045 bornagain77

drc466, on the other thread:

keith s has decided that a subjective, statistical analysis of incomplete, contrary cladograms “proves” evolution. While ignoring the flaws of his argument, and all the statistical analyses of orders of orders of magnitude higher improbabilities that “disprove” evolution.

drc466, here:

How about this: Keith s (via Theobald) uses a subjective, statistical analyses of incomplete and contrary “trees of life” to show that they meet the statistical definition of an objective nested heirarchy, with the assumption that an ONH = UCD. Keith s fails to acknowledge the subjectiveness or weakness of the trees so analyzed, the weakness of using purely statistical analyses, and most fatally fails to prove the assumption that ONH = UCD, or that ID has equal probability of != ONH.

drc466, 1. The cladograms are not "incomplete and contrary". Theobald's Figure 1 is rightly captioned "The Consensus Phylogenetic Tree of All Life". 2. They are also not "subjective". Theobald makes the difference clear here. 3. I do not assume that "ONH = UCD". My argument works against creationists, common designists, and guided evolutionists alike. Try again. keith s

"the weakness of using purely statistical analyses" - Unlike FIASCO / CSI has actually passed testing / back-testing: "In order to establish their validity in reliably determining phylogenies, phylogenetic methods have been empirically tested in cases where the true phylogeny is known with certainty, since the true phylogeny was directly observed. Bacteriophage T7 was propagated and split sequentially in the presence of a mutagen, where each lineage was tracked. Out of 135,135 possible phylogenetic trees, the true tree was correctly determined by phylogenetic methods in a blind analysis. Five different phylogenetic methods were used independently, and each one chose the correct tree (Hillis et al.1992 ). In another study, 24 strains of mice were used in which the genealogical relationships were known. Cladistic analysis reproduced almost perfectly the known phylogeny of the 24 strains (Atchely and Fitch 1991). Bush et al. used phylogenetic analysis to retrospectively predict the correct evolutionary tree of human Influenza A virus 83% of the time for the flu seasons spanning 1983 to 1994. In 1998, researchers used 111 modern HIV-1 (AIDS virus) sequences in a phylogenetic analysis to predict the nucleotide sequence of the viral ancestor of which they were all descendants. The predicted ancestor sequence closely matched, with high statistical probability, an actual ancestral HIV sequence found in an HIV-1 seropositive African plasma sample collected and archived in the Belgian Congo in 1959 (Zhu et al.1998 ). In the past decade, phylogenetic analyses have played a significant role in successful convictions in several criminal court cases (Albert et al. 1994; Arnold et al. 1995; Birch et al. 2000; Blanchard et al. 1998; Goujon et al. 2000; Holmes et al. 1993; Machuca et al. 2001; Ou et al. 1992; Veenstra et al. 1995; Vogel 1997; Yirrell et al. 1997), and phylogenetic reconstructions have now been admitted as expert legal testimony in the United States (97-KK- 2220 State of Louisiana v. Richard J. Schmidt [PDF]). The legal test in the U. S. for admissibility of expert testimony is the Daubert guidelines (U. S. Supreme Court Case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587-89, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2794, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 1993). The Daubert guidelines state that a trial court should consider five factors in determining "whether the testimony's underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid": (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within the relevant scientific community (quoted nearly verbatim). Phylogenetic analysis has officially met these legal requirements." Hmmmmmm. Rich

The number of deficiencies in Keith's argument is not yet surpassed by the number of times that he declares it to be a bomb. Box

Rich, Ummm...you do realize that nothing you said contradicts my summation, right? Meanwhile, keith s didn't even try. drc466

Hmmmm.. Black Knights? Black Knights? Ahh yes... http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/09/slaying-meyers.html Rich

Also reposting this: While we wait for Barry’s refutation, here are the closing paragraphs of my OP:

This is a big problem for IDers. They concede that unguided evolution can bring about microevolutionary changes, but they claim that it cannot be responsible for macroevolutionary changes. Yet they give no plausible reasons why microevolutionary changes, accumulating over a long period of time, should fail to produce macroevolutionary changes. All they can assert is that somehow there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution. Having invented a barrier, they must invent a Designer to surmount it. And having invented a Designer, they must arbitrarily constrain his behavior (as explained above) to match the data. Three wild, unsupported assumptions: 1) that a barrier exists; 2) that a Designer exists; and 3) that the Designer always acts in ways that mimic evolution. (We often hear that evolution is a designer mimic, so it’s amusing to ponder a Designer who is an evolution mimic.) Unguided evolution requires no such wild assumptions in order to explain the data. Since it doesn’t require these arbitrary assumptions, it is superior to ID as an explanation. Here’s an analogy that may help. Imagine you live during the time of Newton. You hear that he’s got this crazy idea that gravity, the force that makes things fall on earth, is also responsible for the orbits of the moon around the earth and of the earth and the other planets around the sun. You scoff, because you’re convinced that there is an invisible, undetected barrier around the earth, outside of which gravity cannot operate. Because of this barrier, you are convinced of the need for angels to explain why the moon and the planets follow the paths they do. If they weren’t pushed by angels, they would go in straight lines. And because the moon and planets follow the paths they do, which are the same paths predicted by Newton on the basis of gravity, you assume that the angels always choose those paths, even though there are trillions of other paths available to them. Instead of extrapolating from earthly gravity to cosmic gravity, you assume there is a mysterious barrier. Because of the barrier, you invent angels. And once you invent angels, you have to restrict their behavior so that planetary paths match what would have been produced by gravity. Your angels end up being gravity mimics. Laughable, isn’t it? Yet the ‘logic’ of ID is exactly the same. Instead of extrapolating from microevolution to macroevolution, IDers assume that there is a mysterious barrier that prevents unguided macroevolution from happening. Then they invent a Designer to leap across the barrier. Then they restrict the Designer’s behavior to match the evidence, which just happens to be what we would expect to see if unguided macroevolution were operating. The Designer ends up being an unguided evolution mimic. The problem is stark. ID is trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence, and the only way to achieve parity is to tack wild and unsupported assumptions onto it. If you are still an IDer after reading, understanding, and digesting all of this, then it is safe to say that you are an IDer despite the evidence, not because of it. Your position is a matter of faith and is therefore a religious stance, not a scientific one.

keith s

Reposting this from the original ‘bomb’ thread: With 1600 comments in this thread, now is a good time to pause and take stock. Barry started things off with this:

To tell the truth, when I first started debating origins, I assumed not only that there was a very good chance that I was on the wrong side of the debate, but also that one or more of those highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professionals would come along and drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID… And I think it is safe to assume also that at least one of those 40,000 individuals is the highly educated, credentialed, intelligent professional who, if they could, would drop a science bomb on me that would destroy my naïve belief in ID. Ten years later, 40,000 commenters later. No bomb. I’m beginning to think that maybe there isn’t a bomb. Maybe my confidence in ID is not naïve after all.

Oops. Within hours of posting that, Barry was already faced with a bomb he could not defuse. A bomb showing that ID is trillions of times worse at explaining the evidence compared to unguided evolution. UDers have been trying, and failing, to rebut my argument ever since. Barry took a weak stab at it:

Your article consists of sneers and theological arguments about how a designer “woodna dun it that way.”

That’s wrong, of course. My argument makes no assumptions about how the designer “wooda dun it”. That’s precisely the problem for IDers — they have to explain why, out of the trillions of possibilities, a designer would do things in a way that makes it look exactly as if unguided evolution were responsible. It’s bizarre. After refuting Barry, I challenged him:

I’ve placed the bomb in front of you, Barry. Can you defuse it? Will you run for safety and let someone else deal with it? Or will you allow it to explode, and then stagger out of the smoke, dazed and singed like Wile E. Coyote, while insisting that there was no explosion at all? The spotlight’s on you, Barry.

That was on October 24th. I haven’t heard from him since. Meanwhile, others have tried, with similar results. Those attempts can be seen in this thread and also here. KF’s response was to post yet another of his “FYI-FTR” threads, with comments turned off, of course, to prevent open discussion. At around the same time, he appears to have turned off comments on the thread that WJM started to discuss my argument. The argument clearly has IDers spooked, and no wonder. Once you’ve seen that ID is losing the game by a score of trillions to one, there is no rational reason to continue believing in ID. IDers desperately need a refutation. Can anyone defuse the bomb? keith s

Let me repeat my challenge from the other thread:

Barry, If my bomb is such a dud, you should be able to defuse it easily, in your own words. How about it?

After you've made your attempt, I'll respond. Then we can look to see who is bleeding and who isn't. keith s

and then, later: "Bootstrapping is the most popular statistical method for assessing the reliability of the branches in a phylogenetic tree (Felsenstein 1985). Bootstrapping is a statistical technique for empirically estimating the variability of a parameter (Efron 1979; Efron and Gong 1983). In a bootstrap analysis, a fictional dataset is created by randomly sampling data from the real dataset until a new dataset is created of the same size. This process is done repeatedly (hundreds or thousands of times), and the parameter of interest is estimated from each fictional dataset. The variability of these bootstrapped estimations is itself an estimate of the variability of the parameter of interest. In phylogenetics, a new phylogeny is inferred from each bootstrapped dataset (Felsenstein 1985). These bootstrapped phylogenies will likely have different topologies. From these different bootstrapped trees, the variability in the inferred tree can be estimated. The parts of the bootstrapped trees that are in common are ascribed a high confidence, while the parts that vary extensively are assigned a low confidence. Trees constructed from random data do not result in high confidence trees or branches when bootstrapped. Thus, bootstrapping provides one way to test whether a phylogenetic tree is genuine." Rich

from 29+ evidences: "This method, now called cladistics, does not assume genealogical relatedness a priori, since it can be used to classify anything in principle, even things like books, cars, or chairs that are obviously not genealogically related in a biological sense (Kitching et al. 1998, Ch. 1, p. 26; ). Using firm evolutionary arguments, however, Hennig justified this method as the most appropriate classification technique for estimating evolutionary relationships generated by lineal descent. In fact, Hennig's cladistic method is nothing more than a formalization of the methods systematic biologists had been using intuitively ever since Linnaeus penned Systema Naturae. Biologists today construct their phylogenetic trees based on Hennig's method, and because of cladistics these phylogenetic trees are reproducible and independently testable (Brooks 1991, Ch. 2; Kitching et al. 1998)." Rich

Rich, How about this: Keith s (via Theobald) uses a subjective, statistical analyses of incomplete and contrary "trees of life" to show that they meet the statistical definition of an objective nested heirarchy, with the assumption that an ONH = UCD. Keith s fails to acknowledge the subjectiveness or weakness of the trees so analyzed, the weakness of using purely statistical analyses, and most fatally fails to prove the assumption that ONH = UCD, or that ID has equal probability of != ONH. He then loudly proclaims victory, screaming epithets at the retreating backs of those who've chopped his legs off. Good enough? drc466

William: Could you provide just a sentence or two as to the main points? Rich

Well, to be fair, narrative always takes precedence over facts when it comes to Darwinists. We can see here how denying the obvious comes in very handy when it comes to keeping the narrative intact. As far as I'm concerned, the Black Knight in the video represents Darwinism. Each wound is a major prediction by Darwinism that has proven to be false. And yet, the Black Knight keeps the narrative of his own triumph alive - at least in his own mind. William J Murray

It was going *so* well for the ID side they closed comments in both threads in a fit of mercy... Rich

Barry, congratulations on keeping the comments open. You know I really am warming to you. :) Have you read and fully understood the arguments? If so could you provide just a sentence or two as to the main points? Rich