Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PST
BA77, Ridged mathematics is only required by darwinists for calculating FCSI. They don't need math for their theory to be true.Collin
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PST
bornagain77, disparity, whether early or later, does not mean "out of sequence". A rabbit in the Cambrian would be "out of sequence".Astroman
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PST
"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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PST
Joe, yup. 117, citing Origin, ch 6. But bury it in the onward march of the talking points is such fun. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST
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. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PST
keith s- Your argument was refuted by Darwin (1859). Your attempt to refute that exposed you as a very desperate child. CongratulationsJoe
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PST
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
November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST
1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 12