Intelligent Design

Evolution Professors: There Will be Anatomical Similarities Among Related Organisms

Spread the love

What exactly is a scientific prediction? Philosophers have long since pointed out that many so-called scientific predictions do not qualify. For instance, sometimes a prediction is made after the fact. Other times the prediction is too broad or vague. In some cases a failure of the prediction can be too easily accommodated, using minor adjustments to the theory. In fact sometimes the prediction is not even required by the theory. It is simply used to make the theory look good. These textbook examples from the philosophy of science can be found in abundance in evolutionary theory. Consider, for example, Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner who, in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, state that evolution predicts “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms.” It is a typical example of how evolutionists commit even obvious fallacies in their apologetics.  Read more

38 Replies to “Evolution Professors: There Will be Anatomical Similarities Among Related Organisms

  1. 1

    “evolution predicts “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms.”

    Well, it does. What exactly is the problem?

    I would agree that “predict” can be used in a number of different senses, but I don’t see why this usage is fallacious.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos – exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....27s_theory

    In fact, by the criterion laid out by Lakatos in the following article and audio lecture, Darwinism is found to be a ‘degenerate science program’, i.e. a ‘pseudoscience’;

    Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos
    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosop.....ience.aspx

    Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos – audio
    http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/phi.....nce128.mp3

    The following evidence is the evidence that shows Darwinism to be a ‘degenerate science program’ using Lakatos’s criteria

    Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from ‘anomalous’ genetic evidence:

    A Primer on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – 2009
    Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

    How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....ution.html

    Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis – 2006
    Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract

    How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the fossil record;

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....es_pa.html

    The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID – Casey Luskin – Audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_42-07_00

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos – exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....27s_theory

    In fact, by the criterion laid out by Lakatos in the following article and audio lecture, Darwinism is found to be a ‘degenerate science program’, i.e. a ‘pseudoscience’;

    Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos
    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosop.....ience.aspx

    Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos – audio
    http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/phi.....nce128.mp3

    The following evidence is the evidence that shows Darwinism to be a ‘degenerate science program’ using Lakatos’s criteria

    Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from ‘anomalous’ genetic evidence:

    A Primer on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – 2009
    Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

    How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....ution.html

    Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis – 2006
    Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the fossil record;

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....es_pa.html

    The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID – Casey Luskin – Audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_42-07_00

    This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:

    More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism – March 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....f_the.html

    The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011
    Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that’s the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52571.html

    Many more instances are found in Dr. Hunter’s blog:

    Darwin’s Predictions
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

    further note:

    Is evolution pseudoscience?
    Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.
    http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

    Theism compared to Materialism within the Scientific Method
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNWZ3ejQyZGc5&hl=en_US

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Has anyone ever debated this guy about evolution?

    The Atheist Doctor – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....RQzQpnYhKI

  6. 6
    felipe says:

    The problen is that similarities are not compelling evidence for darwinian evolution.
    Designed saltational common descent scenarios also predict anatomical similarities among related organisms.

  7. 7
    champignon says:

    True, but “designed saltational common descent” doesn’t predict the nested hierarchy (unless you add the gratuitous assumption that the designer always acts in a way that mimics evolution).

  8. 8
    gpuccio says:

    champignon:

    Why do you state that? Nested hierarchy are simply natural in designed common descent, slatational or not. They are common in human design, and that’s certainly not because human designers want to mimic evolution.

    They are perfectly natural, especially in Object Oriented Programming.

    So, could you explain better your point?

  9. 9
    champignon says:

    Hi gpuccio,

    Rather than reinvent the wheel, I refer you to Douglas Theobald’s excellent explanation:

    The nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with other possible biological patterns, such as the continuum of “the great chain of being” and the continuums predicted by Lamarck’s theory of organic progression (Darwin 1872, pp. 552-553; Futuyma 1998, pp. 88-92). Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies are the elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.

    Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between “subjective” and “objective” is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc. The particular classification scheme chosen for the cars is subjective. In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies (Pei 1949; Ringe 1999). Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese.

    The difference between classifying cars and classifying languages lies in the fact that, with cars, certain characters (for example, color or manufacturer) must be considered more important than other characters in order for the classification to work. Which types of car characters are more important depends upon the personal preference of the individual who is performing the classification. In other words, certain types of characters must be weighted subjectively in order to classify cars in nested hierarchies; cars do not fall into natural, unique, objective nested hierarchies.

    Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees.

  10. 10
    gpuccio says:

    champignon:

    I agree with what is said there, but I still can’t see your point. We are not denying common descent here. I fully accept common descent.

    So, I do accept the concept of phylogeny and of nested hyerarchy. But why should that be evidence against design?

    The designer designs by reusing not only the software, but also the “hardware”. He designs in the presence of objective constraints. He designs an Object Oriented Design, where new designs are derived form what already exists, with the introduction of new original information where necessary and possible.

    So again, could you explain better your point?

  11. 11
    gpuccio says:

    Elizabeth:

    I believe the point is simple: similarities and nested hyerarchhies are a good argument in favour of common descent. They tell us nothing about the causal explanation of evolution.

    We all agree that evolution happened. Many of us in ID agree that common descent is real. Nobody in ID agrees that the neo darwinian mechanism explain the origin of biological information, and therefore evolution.

    Perhaps people should stop using the word “evolution” alone to denote something. Some use “evolution” for common descent, others for “neo darwinian explanation”, others for both, others probably even in other senses. It should not be difficult, for people on both sides, to be more precise with their terms.

  12. 12
    champignon says:

    It’s an important point: the single, objective nested hierarchy is a fantastically well-confirmed prediction of evolutionary theory, and only of evolutionary theory. It is not a prediction of “designed common descent.”

    To see this, consider two key differences between evolution and designed common descent:

    1. Design is not limited to incremental changes.

    2. Design can introduce identical features in widely separated parts of the hierarchy.

    These differences mean that designed common descent, just like pure design, will generally not yield a single, objective, nested hierarchy, for the reasons that Theobald gives above.

    The only way to get a single nested hierarchy under designed common descent is if the designer mimics evolution by always making gradual changes and never introducing a design innovation into separated parts of the hierarchy.

  13. 13
    PeterJ says:

    gpuccio.

    ‘Many of us in ID agree that common descent is real’

    Can you please explain what you mean by this?

    Do you, and other ID’ists, believe for instance that man descended from a primate of some description or other?

    I’ve been viewing this site for around 3 years now, and have learned a lot from both camps. Not being a scientist I appreciate the way things are discussed here and find that I can normally grasp the gist of what the arguments are, from both sides.

    I am however a doubter of Darwinism, whatever shape and form, and lean towards ID. No matter what is being discussed I am normally quite comfortable holding this veiw when all is said and done.

    Discussing things at the molecular level is great, I really enjoy the banter, but lately i can’t help but feel that it is all going round in circles and no matter the evidence no one seems to ever really take the edge.

    But a part of me has been wondering why bother, when you take the ‘Fossil record’ into consideration? And not only that but the supposed ‘descent’ of ‘all’ living creatures?

    Why can’t we find a steady line of transtion between the pre-Cambrian and the animlas found in the Cambrian? Why can’t we demonstrate a steady line of transition between fish and even one four legged creature, Dionosaur or otherwise? Why, with all the different Dinosaur fossils that have been found, for instance a 1000 T-Rex fossils, are we not able to show a steady line of transition from a common ancestor to even one of them? Why do we lack a specimen of transition for any of the mammals that have existed, whales, horses, giraffes, Seals, bats etc etc.

    That to me this is enough to completely render common descent a trivial matter, with little consequence.

    I know a lot of you will read this and perhaps yawn ‘Here we go… another creationsit’. But to me this is just so obvious I sometimes wonder why you even argue beyond it.

    What is your take on that GP?

  14. 14
    Chas D says:

    Why can’t we find a steady line of transtion between the pre-Cambrian and the animlas found in the Cambrian? Why can’t we demonstrate a steady line of transition between fish and even one four legged creature, Dionosaur or otherwise? Why, with all the different Dinosaur fossils that have been found, for instance a 1000 T-Rex fossils, are we not able to show a steady line of transition from a common ancestor to even one of them? Why do we lack a specimen of transition for any of the mammals that have existed, whales, horses, giraffes, Seals, bats etc etc.

    For one thing: The capricious nature of fossilisation. Why don’t you have a photograph for every day of your life? One could conclude from your ‘photo record’ that there was an awful lot of Christmas and holidays going on, and gaps when you aged with no discernible intermediates. Fewer than 1 in a billion organisms (it is estimated) fossilise. They are a sample of the forms around at the time, favouring hard parts, commoner organisms, and those from aquatic environments. Has even a single passenger pigeon fossil been retrieved? Yet they darkened the skies, we know they existed …

    For another: the capricious nature of speciation. Lineages don’t stay put, and speciation is frequently a matter of isolation of a small group of organisms followed by divergence. None of them may fossilise, nor their descendants, nor theirs … then, eventually, one may get a bone, but even under a gradualistic scenario it may have changed significantly since one’s previous encounter, lower down in the strata in a different part of the world, with its distant relatives.

    The importance of molecular studies is that they display direct evidence of gradual genetic change. A fossil is one way to preserve an ‘intermediate’, but leaving descendants is a way of ‘freezing’ your DNA. We don’t have many fossil bats, but we do have the DNA of the ancestors of bats and mice, preserved in bats and mice. Evidently, with evolution, that DNA must change, but if you have two lineages descended from one ancestor, you can assess the degree of divergence. Old divergences will show more change than recent ones. You can calibrate times with the fossils that you do have. What you do not tend to see, as you stack these branches into a tree, is discontinuity.

  15. 15

    Why can’t we find a steady line of transtion between the pre-Cambrian and the animlas found in the Cambrian? Why can’t we demonstrate a steady line of transition between fish and even one four legged creature

    Why would you expect to “find” a “steady line” in a record that is as necessarily patchy as the fossil record?

    The fossil record is not a set of video cameras left running at specific geographical coordinates for billions of years! It is simply a collection of rocks, that have survived in “readable” form (i.e. not metamorphosed or turned to sand) bearing traces of organisms that died in such a manner that their remains left a readable imprint. In other words, animals that were not eaten in their entirety or decayed.

    Cambrian rocks (i.e. marine sedimentary rocks dating from that era) are found quite widely across the globe. Here is a map:

    http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/...../12045.htm

    And indeed we see radiation through the Cambrian era, from early to late.

    But fossil-bearing rocks from earlier than this are much scarcer. This is, of course, likely to be because there really was an “explosion” of life in the Cambrian, with life-forms not only becoming much more various but much more numerous.

    But the fact that we cannot trace any one lineage is not particularly surprising. In fact we probably can’t trace ANY direct lineage in the fossil record. What we can do (I mean “we” as in “people”, not as in “me” – I’m not a palaeontologist!) is construct phylogenies.

    And those phylogenies include fish-tetrapod phylogenies. Sure we do not have fossils in a direct line from fish to four-legged animals. But what we do have are early tetrapod fossils that can be readily fitted to a branching diagram with fish-like animals at its root.

    So while you could argue that there is no “proof” of common descent, or even that there are vast gaps in the common descent evidence, and be correct, what we have is a jig-saw puzzle that looks far more like a picture of single tree with pieces missing, than a picture of several trees, or than a picture that isn’t of trees at all.

  16. 16
    gpuccio says:

    champignon:

    I don’t agree. At the molecular level, we have changes that are not incremental at all. The emergence of protein domains is one example. The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is another. OOL was almost certainly not increnemtal at all. Even many macroscopic events, like the Cambrian explosion, do not seem incremental at all.

    And identical, or at least very similar, features do appear in separated parts of the hyerarchy: darwinists call that “convergent evolution”.

    And anyway, you don’t take into consideration that the designer works against constraints, as it is obvious form all that we observe, ansd implements things in the way that is simplest given those constraints. You seem to say that the designer does not act as an omnipotent god that can do anything anytime. I agree with that.

    So again, I don’t agree with your point.

  17. 17
    markf says:

    Peter

    If you doubt Common Descent you need to think carefully about the alternatives and their implications.

    First – let me clarify exactly what I mean by Common Descent. It is quite a respectable view among scientists that possibly life descended from more than one very simple source (by “simple” I mean as simple as a bacterium or simpler). So perhaps it would be better called “Descent from Simple Forms”. If you doubt this then you have to suppose that at some point one or more complex life forms (eukaryotic or more complicated) did not have parents but somehow sprang into existence fully formed. Do you really think this is possible? We have zero recorded instances of it happening. Every living organism we know of was descended from another living organism.

  18. 18
    gpuccio says:

    Peter J:

    I appreciate your thoughts.

    My take on common descent is purely empirical, as is my take on ID. The only difference is that I believe that the evidence for ID is infinitely stronger than the evidence for CD.

    That said, I still think that CD, for what we know at present, remains the best explanation for many observations. So, I will keep my acceptance of it unless and untill new data, or new reasonings, make me change my mind.

    For me personally, the strongest evidence in favour of CD is the homology we observe between similar proteins that are present in very distant species, and at the same time the difference we observe between them.

    The point is, the same protein with the same function usually shares some homology with all the other instances of that protein in various species. Well, that could simply be a functional constraint. But at the same time, the homology usually decreases with the “evolutionary” distance of the species, while the function remains the same. That “decrease” is gradual and rather consistent: I have personally verified it in many cases.

    IMHO, the best explanation for those observations is that neutral variation, in long periods of time, changes the sequence while negative NS protects the function: IOWs, the functional space of each protein function is “traversed” by neutral evolution.

    That only makes sense if the same sequence physically passes from one species to another,as apparently those differences are difficult to be explained only on a functional basis (although some of those differences could certainly have a functional basis).

    By the way, this concept is also the basis for Durston’s method to evaluate dFSCI in protein families, which is very important for ID.

    So, this is my take: there is no doubt that biological information is designed, but it is very likely that it is designed reusing what already exists, not only the softfware (that would only be common design), but also the hardware.

    I have no specific opinion about the problem of whether CD be universal ot not. I don’t think that is really solved.

  19. 19
    Joe says:

    champignon,

    You are confused as the only nested hierarch the theory of evolution “predicts” is one based on “all lofe”

    Eric B Knox, “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49:

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    markf:

    Every living organism we know of was descended from another living organism.

    Except the first, of course.

    The main problem with your concept is it is untestable. It may be true but don’t call it science.

  21. 21
    Joe says:

    champignon,

    Cladistic analysis is based on shared characteristics with descent being assumed.

    Not only that with gradual descent with modification we would expect a blending of characteristics which would violate a nested hierarchy.

    And seeing tat with evolution characteristics can be lost as well as gained, that alone tells us it does not expect a nested hierarchy.

  22. 22
    markf says:

    Joe

    The main problem with your concept is it is untestable. It may be true but don’t call it science.

    It doesn’t matter whether you call it science or not. It is based on the observation that all complex (eukaryotic) organisms we know of have parents. Do you think it is false? Do you think eukaryotic cells once sprang into existence fully formed? If not you have to accept the hypothesis that all life is descended from simple organisms.

  23. 23
    Joe says:

    markf:

    It is based on the observation that all complex (eukaryotic) organisms we know of have parents.

    We also have an observation that only life begets life-> ooops.

    As for a hypothesis- there isn’t one. Just some vague claim.

  24. 24
    markf says:

    Joe

    As for a hypothesis- there isn’t one. Just some vague claim.

    My hypothesis is that eukaryotic life was descended from a simpler form of life.  You could hardly be more specific than that.

    So – do you agree?  Or do you think eukaryotic life sprang into existence? 

  25. 25
    Chas D says:

    For me personally, the strongest evidence in favour of CD is the homology we observe between similar proteins that are present in very distant species, and at the same time the difference we observe between them.

    While this is correct, I think I would make a case for ‘nonfunctional’ similarities as well. These do not probe such deep branches of the assumed tree as functional sequence, due to lack of conservation (one clue that they are nonfunctional) but for the depth they work at, they do so very well. It is the very nature of these kinds of marker – more like fluff on a photocopy than spellings in the text – that render explanations other than CD hard to sustain. There comes a point where one exhausts possible explanations in terms of cryptic function, for a particular mark in a particlular clade.

    They probe 50-million year timeframes with reasonable accuracy, which takes us well above the species level.

  26. 26
    gpuccio says:

    Chas:

    well, I essentially agree with you on that.

  27. 27

    You guys may be right that nested hierarchies (which are regularly violated by human designers) would not be violated in biological design because of the constraint imposed by self-replication and development.

    In which case, Darwinian evolution and ID account for the same data (a better word than “predict” in this context I think).

    But this seems to me to drive a wedge down the middle of ID: between those who accept the evidence for common descent, and explain nested hierarchies as the only possible way in which an ID could work, and those who reject it, and claim that lack of evidence for common descent is evidence against Darwinian evolution and therefore evidene for ID!

  28. 28
    gpuccio says:

    Elizabeth:

    Well, we in ID are tough people, we can live with a wedge in our middle 🙂

    Indeed, the refutation of CD is not an integral part of ID in any way. Dembski, for instance, refuses CD, if I am right, but that is not part of his main work about ID.

    Behe accepts CD, and so others.

    It is true that, is CD were false, that would be a falsification of neo darwinism. Neo darwinism implies CD. ID can live with or without it.

    And I am more than happy of my arguments against neo darwinism, and feel no special need to falsify CD to falsify neodarwinism.

  29. 29

    Big terminology issues here!

    Darwinian evolutionary processes, can, as I think you agree, explain “microevolution”, so even if YEC is true, that doesn’t invalidate the principle, it just means that the starting point was multiple, and late.

    In fact it is not even an tenet of evolutionary theory that the tree has a single root. Darwin himself thought that the earliest life forms were “a few forms or one” (I quote from memory, could have the wording slightly wrong).

    And I see that dreaded “neodarwinism” word has crept in again! I think we should eschew it!

    If it means one thing, it doesn’t mean current evolutionary theory, and if it means lots of things it’s ambiguous!

  30. 30
    Joe says:

    markf:

    My hypothesis is that eukaryotic life was descended from a simpler form of life.

    How much more simple?

    BTW a designer would be a parent…

    Observation that only life begets life, markf…

  31. 31
    markf says:

    Joe

    How much more simple? Well a prokaryote or similar. Such an organism is not a good candidate for a designer! But that is hardly the issue. We are talking about the physical process of producing the first eukaryotes.

    If you are determined to keep on evading my question. Try this instead:

    * How do you think the first eukaryotic life forms appeared?

    Yes life only begats life. So we have another major question because we know there was no life in the universe 14 billion years ago.

    * How did the first life appear? I mean physically. Did it spring into existence fully formed or did it gradually evolve from things that were a bit like life?

    I don’t suppose you are going to answer either of my questions … but hey I gave it a try.

  32. 32
    Joe says:

    Prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes.

    How do I think the first life forms apepared? By design. And through science we should be able to determine what those life forms were.

    We do NOT jump to any conclusion beyond the obvious- that we exist- living organisms on planet earth exist- and then attempt to explain that existence in terms of PROXIMATE, not ultimate, cause(s).

    That said living organisms on earth could have arrived on earth fully formed- metazoans, proks and single-celled euks.

    That is what this whole debate is all about mark.

  33. 33
    champignon says:

    gpuccio,

    If design were in operation, then massive horizontal transfers — as in the origin of the eukaryotes — should be the norm, not the exception. Non-incremental changes should also be the norm, not the exception, just as we see in human designs. But if those were the norm, then it would no longer be possible to reconstruct a single unambiguous nested hierarchy.

    The fact that we can do so — to an incredible degree of accuracy — strongly favors evolutionary theory over “designed common descent.”

    Even many macroscopic events, like the Cambrian explosion, do not seem incremental at all.

    The Cambrian ‘explosion’ unfolded over millions of years. That doesn’t seem incremental to you?

    And identical, or at least very similar, features do appear in separated parts of the hyerarchy: darwinists call that “convergent evolution”.

    But they are not identical or similar at the genetic level, as you would expect if design were involved. Why would the designer reinvent the wheel, when he could just borrow one from another place in the hierarchy?

    You seem to say that the designer does not act as an omnipotent god that can do anything anytime.

    No, I ask why, if “designed common descent” is true, does the designer choose to mimic evolution when there are so many other possibilities open to him?

    The sensible answer, of course, is that there is no designer.

  34. 34
    markf says:

    Joe

    I suppose fully fledged life forms might have arrived on earth from space (no current eukaryote could stand travel in space but I- but of course that doesn’t answer the question as to how they first came into existence. But I am pretty sure you are not up for answering this question.

  35. 35
    markf says:

    Joe

    I suppose fully fledged life forms might have arrived on earth from space (no current eukaryote could stand travel in space but I guess the current ones might have evolved from one that could) – but of course that doesn’t answer the question as to how they first came into existence.

  36. 36
    Joe says:

    markf-

    I am very comfortable to say “I don’t know” to the question of “How did the first living organisms arise in this universe?”

    However I do know if they arrived by design then they also evolved by design.

    And I also know that there is only one reality behind our existence and science only cares about reality.

  37. 37
    gpuccio says:

    Elizabeth:

    I am not sure I understand. Was that an answer to my comment 1.1.3.1, as the nested hyerarchy suggests? 🙂

    Then your intelligent design introduced some original elements, as I cannot find any reference to YEC in my post. I never discuss YEC. I am not interested in that perspective. Personally, I have no doubts that the earth is an old earth.

    What I said was:

    “It is true that, is CD were false, that would be a falsification of neo darwinism. Neo darwinism implies CD. ID can live with or without it.”

    IOWs, if there were no CD, there certainly could be no neo darwinian evolution. I think you can agree about that.

    Finally, you object to my use of “neo darwinism”. But I have always been very explicit about what I mean: I mean the “modern synthesis”, the theory, applied at molecular level, that RV + NS are the explanation for biological information.

    You may think that it does not mean “current evolutionary theory”, but I did not say “current evolutionary theory”, I said “neo darwinism”. You see, with all the forms of neo-neo and neo-neo-neo darwinism, up to shapiro, I am still convinced, stupid me, that classical neo darwinism, a la Dawkins, is the only non design theory that makes at least some sense, and is still the only competing “adversary” that it is worthwhile to fight.

  38. 38
    Joe says:

    Dr Theobald is confused as it is obvious that descent with modification does not produce a nested hierarchy.

    Ya see the proof is in the pudding- if descent with modification produced a nested hierarchy based on characteristics then humans should have gills and scales, at a minimum because guess what? We allegedly have a fish as an ancestor and fish have those defining characteristics.

    So if we arbitrarly throw those out, ie don’t use them, then that is the same as Theobald’s “car” example.

    However I doubt that Theobald even knows what a nested hierarchy is.

Leave a Reply