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

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

I'm invincible! You're a loony.Phinehas_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Keith's "argument" is rotten to the core.Box_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

We have explained why keith s' arguments fail. He thinks ignoring them makes them go away.Joe_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

keith s you have no argument that is valid.bornagain77_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Also seeing that unguided evolution cannot account for any taxa that means it is uselessJoe_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Dr Denton refutes VJT. He has those two to worry about before getting to me. :razz:Joe_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism — transformed cladism rocks https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/taxonomic-nested-hierarchies-dont-support-darwinism/Silver Asiatic_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

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.htmlbornagain77_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

We know that unguided evolution exists.
And we know that it is worse than impotent. It actually harms.Joe_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

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_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

And I missed the part where VJT modeled unguided evolution producing objective nested hierarchies.Joe_{November 5, 2014
November
11
Nov
5
05
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply