Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinist professor publicly offers tall tales as scientific explanations


Paul Nelson writes:

Could Sahotra [Sarkar] provide any experimental evidence, from any vertebrate group, that developmental pathways for whole organ systems (such as the gut) varied as significantly as his selection story requires? No — the usual term for such variation is “embryonic lethal.” Faced with data that refute the neo-Darwinian account of homology, Sahotra told a Tall One

No problem for Sahotra, however. Natural selection, he said, simply preserved the adult anatomy — keep a tube — while allowing the developmental pathways to vary. Where’s the puzzle? Evolution triumphs again.

The charitable description for that explanation is “ad hoc.” The accurate description is the steaming organic matter, suitable for fertilizer, produced by the nethermost regions of a male bovine.


'motors' grrr, darn typo mutations. and thanks Joseph re: past article, Dr. Hood and his eccentric ways. He hired astronomer to code sim progs. Interesting diverse forces working together across boundaries. Ahead of his time, seemingly erratic and not patient for over-regulation. oh and hattip to Telic Thoughts link to 1989 Foresight article, then Foresights, Nanodot blog for link to Nanotech wire, flagellum motor article. It was a happy happenstance that led me there.... A quote from Marvin Minsky in the article, "I've made up my mind that a person is a machine. If you make a copy of the machine, the copy is as good as the original" Interesting thoughts from 1989.... Are we special, elaborate organic copies with engineered free-will allowed to select large paths of random events or narrow gates of order? back OnTopic, Paul Nelson stated the gut across vertebrates can be accounted for by Design, unlike McVo(MacroEvolution, dastardly son of mini-me - micro-evo). As a matter of common sense, I'd agree. McVo seems to account for everything and nothing all at once. Design however, as Paul stated, is not limited to "material (common) descent". Design makes absolutely more sense as in Ockham's Razor, shortest path, most reasonable design changes and pattern conceptions are distributed across vertebrate types. Just because we cannot yet understand the full design mechanism or the Designer, does not mean we should ignore the veracity of the argument. The tired argument of who created the Designer does not apply to ID anymore than McVo. Is not science required to answer what happened prior to Big Bang? Why the artificial boundary? Its all a matter of perspective, we can see ourselves being 3rd rock from the sun, or a view from outside as fourth object in a series of patterns of life. Whereas 2 becomes 1, it takes a 4th to multiply. Funstuff Michaels7
Paul's point is good. It 'entrails' another object in a long list of pixie dust and fairy tales in the 'forest'. FunStuff - Flagellum moters have twelve cylinders run on an electric current of ions: http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2958 Engineers required, oh and Architects as in Systems Bio-Architects. Michaels7
Sahotra is truly classless above and beyond telling lies. He publicly wondered when Dr. Nelson would have the guts to show up to the debate. It is interesting that he has no pathway for the gut when if fact he is one gutless dude. Instead of debating the facts, he went into the old, tired and desperate trick of the Neo-Darwinist crowd of how ID is creationism...untestable...unneeded. He also attacked BIOLA. I challenge him to show up to Biola's open forum in May. Since he would not be allowed to go on mindless rants and his audience would pin him down to real answers, I am sure that he does not have the guts to show up. Dan Dan
JS said: "we would deny Whenever we have opportunities to do so until people think that we are on the side of the truth because that what our genes have us to do!" Don't quite follow?!? You would deny what? And why would people think that you (darwinists) are on the side of the truth because of genetic pressing? What is truth in your oppinion? It looks like the denial of everything until someone buys into your bs, yet that is in my mind far away from searching the truth. Maybe you could try to formulate it again in a more understandable way. On a personal non-manipulative note: No matter what you think about IDist, we would use every opportunity in search for truth until people will know that Darwinism in its most conservative from and others is utter bs. Why? Because we owe it to humanity to search for the truth and we know that darwinism is far from it. The search for truth and the admittance of errors should be the ultimate goal of every human being, everything else is self-denial. tb
Well, no matter what you say about us Darwinists, we would deny Whenever we have opportunities to do so until people think that we are on the side of the truth because that what our genes have us to do! JS

Leave a Reply