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

_{Barry Arrington
November 3, 2014

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The essence of the “Black Knight Taunt” is to pretend overwhelming victory after suffering a crushing defeat. Here we have a classic example from a commenter named “keiths.”

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.

Amusingly, keiths insisted that he had posted just such a bomb over at The Skeptical Zone that proved that Darwinism is “trillions” of times better at explaining the data than ID. His argument failed at many levels. Yet, even more amusingly, he kept on insisting he had debunked ID after his so-called bomb had been defused by numerous commenters. See, e.g., here and here.

Here is the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

In my example, WJM lopped off the Black Knight’s arms and KF took out his legs. Yet days later he was still posting shrill comments announcing his triumph.

In the clip above Arthur gives the only response to “The Black Knight Taunt.” We pick up the scene after Arthur has cut off the knight’s arms and legs:

Black Knight: Right, I’ll do you for that!
King Arthur: You’ll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I’m invincible!
King Arthur: …You’re a loony.

Arthur rides away.

Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see! Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!

Comments

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

William, I've rebutted your previous criticisms. Do you have a new one?keith s_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

How long are we going to have to wade through this unrelenting nonsense?William J Murray_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Hi EnkiduGary S. Gaulin_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Now there is a Streambed Designer? You sure have a good imagination Keith.Gary S. Gaulin_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Box, you're showing ID in its true light: Gapsism.Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

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? KFkairosfocus_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

lifepsy, You're making the same errors as drc466. See my reply to him.keith s_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

KF, While you're here, don't forget my challenge.keith s_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

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. -QQuerius_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

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_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply