Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dennis Venema Begs the Question and Warns the Church That it Must Come to Terms With Human-Chimp Common Ancestry


In spite of the crystal clear message from science that evolution is not a good hypothesis evolutionists continue to add confusion and uncertainty to promote their mythology. One tactic evolutionists use is to interpret evidence in terms of evolution and then claim the result as evidence for evolution. That is not only bad science, it is fallacious. Conclusions cannot also be premises. Yesterday’s installment from evolutionist Dennis Venema is yet another example of this never ending display of petitio principia.  Read more

Joe, "Do you allow this person to keep spewing lies and misrepresentations without doing anything?" beyond doubt defense of I D must keep doing. Joe and friends to I D display recommendable efforts. very much of interest to me certainly. sergio sergiomendes
To JoeCoder- the following is a perfect example of what happens when I present positive evidence for ID: How to Test and Falsify Intelligent Design 1- I presented the criteria for assessing evidence 2- I then presented the evidence 3- I get told the evidence isn't evidence for ID (as predicted) because it wasn't proven that non-intelligent processes couldn't do it Note that Kevin never even discussed the OP, he flat-out refused to excpet to handwave it away. I told him that before we discuss the evidence we have to discuss how it is assessed. All he can do is say I am attacking a strawman version of evolution, even though "my" version is the same version that evolutionary biologists use- ya see Kevin has ignored all of the many references I have provided to support "my" version- IOW he lies, and then he equivocates "evolution" in order to use any change, no matter how trivial, to be evidence for his position and contra ID. Tell me JoeCoder, how do you deal with someone like that? This guy has an input into Texas education- hopefully he is just a copy-boy/ errand-boy- so what would you do? Do you allow this person to keep spewing lies and misrepresentations without doing anything? Joe
I don’t follow enough of your debates to know who descends first; but from the quotes above it seems you descend the furthest.
How do you come to that conclusion?
Which does nothing for the argument the argument and wastes screen space
Again the argument is already over- they lost by spewing the ad homs.
Whenever I see someone ad homineming, I assume they’ve already lost and scroll past the whole ordeal. And I’m an ID proponent. I wonder what ID critics think when they see it.
And again, it is the ID critics who spew the ad homs, so I already know what they think. Well it appears you are going to say whatever you want dspite the evidence. Good luck with that. Joe
@bilbiography77 :) I already have my own very large pages of notes http://www.reddit.com/r/JoeCoder/comments/wlj9g/my_notes/ , I just think it would benefit the ID community as a whole if there was a centralized place for consolidated summaries/sources organized by category. JoeCoder
@Joe > And you do realize that they are always the first to move to the ad hominem. I don't follow enough of your debates to know who descends first; but from the quotes above it seems you descend the furthest. > isn’t anything more to do but pound them with their tactics Which does nothing for the argument the argument and wastes screen space. Whenever I see someone ad homineming, I assume they've already lost and scroll past the whole ordeal. And I'm an ID proponent. I wonder what ID critics think when they see it. JoeCoder
JoeCoder, if you are interested in more resources for ID, here is the Intelligent Design video trilogy:
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670 Privileged Planet - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308516608498324470 Darwin's Dilemma - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWEsW7bO8P4
Here is a radio interview on the videos for Intelligent Design: Excerpt: Moody Radio’s Janet Parshall invited Illustra Media’s producer Lad Allen to join her on the air waves to speak about our Intelligent Design trilogy. ,,, To hear the enthusiastic and insightful commentary you can listen to the archive at: http://www.moodyradio.org/radioplayer.aspx?episode=88401&hour=2 NOTE: Interview Starts at 8:50 seconds in with a clip from The Privileged Planet. Here is Illustra Media's home page: http://illustramedia.com/category/intelligent-design/ As well Illustra Media also has a very good recent ID video on Butterflies called "Metamorphosis"
Metamorphosis Trailer - Illustra Media http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiRFftkTtSA
JoeCoder, Yes that Genetic Entropy book by Sanford is really a eye opener. I read both that one and 'The Edge' by Behe both around the same time and knew right then and there that Darwinists had no empirical basis in which to build their case. If you are interested here is the main argument for Genetic Entropy condensed in a nutshell in this following video:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086
and here is a short sweet overview of the Mendel's Accountant computer program and the main, widely accepted by population geneticists, insurmountable problems of neo-Darwinism:
Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory (Mendel's Accountant) Excerpt of Conclusion: This (computer) program (Mendel’s Accountant) is a powerful teaching and research tool. It reveals that all of the traditional theoretical problems that have been raised about evolutionary genetic theory are in fact very real and are empirically verifiable in a scientifically rigorous manner. As a consequence, evolutionary genetic theory now has no theoretical support—it is an indefensible scientific model. Rigorous analysis of evolutionary genetic theory consistently indicates that the entire enterprise is actually bankrupt. http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-versus-darwin-when-macro-evolution.html
Perhaps someone else can tell you if there is a place where articles for ID or more thoroughly organized on the web, but I can help you with a few places that have peer-reviewed articles for ID:
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) - updated regularly http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 Evolutionary Informatics Lab - Main Publications http://evoinfo.org/publications/ Bio-Complexity Publication Archive http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/issue/archive
JoeCoder- Interesting that you quote Hitchens. I follow his rule of "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." And you do realize that they are always the first to move to the ad hominem. So by the time I get to them they have already admitted defeat so there isn't anything more to do but pound them with their tactics. That's the way I see it anyway... Joe
@BA: I got my copy of Genetic Entropy a few days ago, and I already have most of your entropy notes. Have you considered starting a wiki so it's easier to share them? I think we could really use an ID wiki of some sort. I even wish EV News and biologic would organize their articles more categorically (ERV's, Chromosome 2, sediba, etc.), instead of having multiple articles on each with some overlap. Or just a centralized ID wiki. @Joe I actually had p.143 of edge open right before I read your response. Here he states, 10^20 organisms needed to generate one protein binding site, which is the same estimated population size of HIV, p.137. So it seems he's actually on the mark with his probability estimates, just incorrect for listing it as 0 on that table. But your critics are right about your tone. Your arguments will have far more weight if you stay near the top of the pyramid: http://i.imgur.com/3LL3E.png "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" --Cicero "I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem" --Christopher Hitchens JoeCoder
Sergio- dealing with evos for decades has given me decades of comedic experience Joe
Joe, your ability to "roll with the punches" is much evident. perhaps such jolly attitude can relieve so much distress. do you have comedic experience? sergio sergiomendes
Another song- by Cat Stevens- I'm being hounded by a sock puppet sock puppet sock puppet A creepy and slimely little sock puppet sock puppet sock puppet And if it ever makes some sense, has a clue or evidence Oh if it ever makes some sense, Oh if.... I won't have to laugh no more And if it ever says goodbye, leaves today or even dies Oh if it ever says goodbye, Oh if... we all could rejoice some more Joe
Moderators, The commenter, Joe, seems hell-bent on misrepresenting my words for his(?) own benefit. He says,
But anyway what do you do when someone craps in your living room? Don’t ya see that is what is happening here? Did I ever engage the sock puppet except when I was attacked? It went out of its way to try to shame me.
Notice how Joe describes my post as crapping in his living room. Only someone like Joe could describe my genuine concern for Uncommon Descent as crapping on. Notice also that Joe describes Uncommon Descent as his living room. This should raise red flags with the administration at UD. Joe has a long history of being thrown off blogs and message boards for uncivil and threatening behaviour, and now he has taken up residence here. Does Uncommon Descent want to be known as Joe's last refuge? Joe describes my post as an attack on him. And yet my post was clearly borne out of concern for Uncommon Descent to maintain its usual high standards. With Joe, these turnabout tactics are nothing new but it is instructive to have them on display. Hopefully the administrators of Uncommon Descent will do the right thing before the blog's reputation falls into disrepute. Bartax
Joe, that what a healthy attitude seems to look like. laughter is best medicine :) sergio sergiomendes
My tone is jovial- I'm sitting here laughing at my attacker. The language, yes, no more evoT.... apologies But anyway what do you do when someone craps in your living room? Don't ya see that is what is happening here? Did I ever engage the sock puppet except when I was attacked? It went out of its way to try to shame me. So please, I am out of cheeks.... Joe
Joe: Please, watch tone and language. KF kairosfocus
And call Captain Kirk- it appears that I have cling-ons.... Joe
Herv- clean up on aisle 14- fartax is on the loose, better call the animal control... Joe
Moderators, Is Joe really someone you want representing intelligent design at Uncommon Descent? He has, once again, resorted to invective; it is only a matter of time before he starts issuing threats of violence. Joe has a long history of threatening violence. Uncommon Descent will no doubt remember the heated but civil debate with Elizabeth Liddle? Well, if you don't let's allow Joe to refresh our memories;
Elizabeth Liddle is a full of shit liar. She lies about natural slection. She lies about testable hypotheses for evolutionism and now she is lying about IDists and evos- she makes evos out to be the good guys- yet the evidence says they are asshole liars and ignorant asswipes- and she sez IDists don't answer questions. FUCK YOU LIZ you dried up old hag.
How long will Uncommon Descent continue to allow Joe to pollute the cordial atmosphere with his rude, obnoxious and threatening behaviour? Imagine a young student interested in intelligent design happening upon one of Joe's comments. What must she think? That Joe is representative of the intelligent design movement? The solution is obvious. Bartax
Everybody, a sing-a-long: This is about the one new protein-to-protein binding: They got one new binding On their side They got one new binding, On their side They got one new binding, On their side It's all imagination after that They have a bunch of sock-puppets On their side They have a bunch of sock-puppets On their side They have a bunch of sock-puppets On their side That's where all the lost socks must be Joe
Herv! Clean-up on aisle 13- fartax messed itself again. Better bring the hazmat suits... Joe
Also it appears that I have fixed Dr Hunter's blog- no more evoTARD white trash- like you and your twin thorton- can mess with it. Joe
Hey fartax- What happened, did your fat mouth spew flatulence again? You must be the sock puppet of a sock puppet that was beanned from UD and now has reappeared. My bet is that you are from California... Joe
I see Bornagain77 is back to spamming UD with his cut 'n' paste drivel now that Joe has managed to wreck Hunter's blog for him. Bartax
Ya see JoeCoder and bornagain77, in the evo mind if Behe is wrong once, no matter how trivial the issue, he is wrong all the time. Joe
"Can anyone provide more information on this?" Here you go Michael Behe defends the one 'overlooked' protein/protein binding site generated by the HIV virus, that Abbie Smith and Ian Musgrave had found, by pointing out it is well within the 2 binding site limit he set in "The Edge Of Evolution" on this following site:
Response to Ian Musgrave's "Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe," Part 4 "Yes, one overlooked protein-protein interaction developed, leading to a leaky cell membrane --- not something to crow about after 10^20 replications and a greatly enhanced mutation rate." http://behe.uncommondescent.com/page/4/ An information-gaining mutation in HIV? NO! http://creation.com/an-information-gaining-mutation-in-hiv
In fact, I followed this debate very closely and it turns out the trivial gain of just one protein-protein binding site being generated for the non-living HIV virus (leaky cell membrane), that the evolutionists were 'crowing' about, came at a staggering loss of complexity for the living host it invaded (People) with just that one trivial gain of a 'leaky cell membrane' in binding site complexity. Thus the 'evolution' of the virus clearly stayed within the principle of Genetic Entropy since far more functional complexity was lost by the living human cells it invaded than was ever gained by the non-living HIV virus. A non-living virus which depends on those human cells to replicate in the first place. Moreover, while learning about HIV, that it is a 'mutational powerhouse' which greatly outclasses the 'mutational firepower' of the entire spectrum of higher life-forms combined for millions of years, and about the devastating effect HIV has on humans with just that one trivial binding site being generated, I suddenly realized that if evolution were actually the truth about how life came to be on Earth then the only 'life' that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the 'fittest' are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here:
Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
Further notes: This following link has a nice overview of the classic self-replicating experiment in 1967 by Spiegelman in which the self-replicating molecule got simpler and simpler in a artificial environment,(i.e. Spiegelman's monster), instead of evolving any new complexity that might have led to a self sustaining capability;
Origins of Life – Freeman Dyson – page 75 http://books.google.com/books?id=aQ75QhwpXoEC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Spiegelman+in+1967++origin+of+life&source=bl&ots=oJx64fYN4P&sig=xycZD-Xff6D-UkO4ZhzFWxfMFNA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jFZFT4WnKqmfsQKg79nCDw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Spiegelman%20in%201967%20%20origin%20of%20life&f=false
Darwinists simply have no evidence that any functional complexity, above the exceedingly trivial, can be had by natural processes, moreover the overwhelming rate of 'slightly detrimental mutations' renders the point moot as far as hard science is concerned! Notes to that effect:
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. Per John Sanford
Interestingly, this ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 100 to 200, or even 60, per generation is far greater than what even evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them from any given genome:
Human evolution or extinction - discussion on acceptable mutation rate per generation (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm
Here is a very nice interview of Dr. John Sanford:
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933
It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy, a principle which stands in direct opposition of the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation:
Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
Whereas, neo-Darwinian evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation:
Accounting for Variations - Dr. David Berlinski: - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE
JoeCoder- Nope, it looks like Behe was wrong, by one, wrt HIV. He said 0 (page 143 of EoE) and it appears there has been one. One new protein binding site generated by random mutation in 10^20 viruses. And that is an evolutionary triumph. But we're idiots for being skeptical of the power of time, death (to get rid of the bad) and accumulations of random variations being able to produce an upright biped from a knuckle-walker or quadraped. Joe
From the biologis article: > I realize that Behe has already been shown to have been mistaken about HIV not forming any new protein-protein interactions, though this is usually blunted by appealing to the very large mutation rate that HIV has. Can anyone provide more information on this? I believe that SIV -> HIV was a loss of specificity, but I think they're talking about something else? JoeCoder
fartax you obviously have memory issues as I never posted here as Joe G. And could you please reference this alleged banning or are you just flatulating again? Joe
Are there any moderators available? I seem to remember 'Joe' (aka Joe-G) being banned from Uncommon Descent for, shall we say, behavioural issues. It would be extraordinary if Uncommon Descent were to allow 'Joe' to continue posting here given his prior conduct. Indeed, it would be a direct slap in the face to the administrator who had previously banned him. I've no doubt that the staff at Uncommon Descent will maintain their high standards and do what is necessary. Thankyou. Bartax
Dear you fartax- could you at least disguise your flatulence? I guess you have never heard of "toungue and cheek"? Ya see the reason why Dr Hunter closed comments was that I was exposing the lies and cowardice of evos, they didn't like it, attacked me and I hit back. It got messy. Then, knowing that the tards who started all of this mudslinging read my blog, I posted that little bit. And now you, being the obvious jerk you are, jump all over it and make something out of nothing. Get a life... Joe
Dear me, Joe! Could you at least try and disguise your sycophancy?
If you ever do open up comments I again I will volunteer to be a moderator- I will never use another bad word on your blog because I will just moderate all evoTARD posts that do not conform to a civil discourse. IOW troy and thorton will not be posting very much as they do not know what being civil is and they are too stupid for any discourse.
Jeepers! Just how dark is it inside Dr. Hunters colon, Joe? Bartax
Dr Hunter, Guess who has shown up at my blog spewing vulgarities? Ms spellchecker herself- thorton. Life is good... Joe
Assuming the very thing that needs to be tested in an old evolutionary ploy. And one that seems to be fooling evolutionists into thinking their position is being tested. Joe
Excerpt: One tactic evolutionists use is to interpret evidence in terms of evolution and then claim the result as evidence for evolution. That is not only bad science, it is fallacious. Conclusions cannot also be premises.
Very clearly put Dr. Hunter! I think it might even be fair to say that with the stunning lack of actual empirical evidence for Darwinian processes to actually generate functional information over and above what is already present in molecular life, then entire Darwinian enterprise can rightfully be called a gigantic exercise in 'begging the question' i.e. Conclusions cannot also be premises!
Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) - October 2011 Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”. When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.,,, Just two weeks before the (re)lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/
It reminds me of the interpretation by the US journalist, John Strawberry, of the findings of a certain commission of enquiry and similar commissions: 'The lamp broke...' A kind of childish misattribution. Axel

Leave a Reply