Guilt by Association

StephenB, you said: "The central point is the Darwinist proclivity to insist that science be defined SOLELY as the study of natural causes–that it must be EXCLUSIVELY rather than PRIMARILY about natural causes. That is a new developoment calculated to discredit the design inference." and also: "Methodological naturalism is an arbitrary rule that never existed previously to 1980." If I understand you correctly, you claim that until recently science could legitimately consider non-natural causes for observed phenomena - perhaps not as primary but at least as secondary causes. Can you please give us some examples where science has in the past invoked non-natural causes (even if only secondary) for observed natural phenomena? Were these explanations successful at the time? If so, how and why have they since been superceded by modern natural explanations? Thanks, fG faded_Glory

---hummus man: "If you are asking me whether I believe the statements of real working scientists, Christians among them, that have told me (and you, BTW) that you are wrong instead of some guy on the internet who refuses to say whether he has any experience or training in science other than sniping at scientists from the safety of a tightly moderated blog? Well, what can I say, ya got me there." It's not a question about who you believe. It is a question about whether you can make reasoned judgments based on evidence. Clearly, the answer is no. StephenB

vjtorley, Here is a gem: CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. The researchers, apparently committed to Darwinism, back-pedaled by doing statistical analysis on the evolutionary possibilities if the 38 men sampled somehow inaccurately represented the population at large. Based on this analysis, they concluded that men’s forefather – a single individual, not a group – lived no more than 270,00 years ago. The challenge this study presents to Darwinism is profound. The study of women offered a shred of support for micro-evolution. The Y chromosome research lends no support for micro-evolution. As for macro-evolution, the results of both studies rule out homo erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor of modern humans.4 http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists bornagain77

vjtorley, The reason why I can be so bold as to claim Man as a unique kind is that I find, from the evidence I have been able to look at, that man is as unique genetically as can be from chimps with the refutation of the "genetic similarity" argument: First off Dr. John Sanford, who is by no means a slouch when it comes to genetics (he invented the "gene gun" and pathogen derived resistance) states: Dr. Sanford calculates it would take 12 million years to “fix” a single base pair mutation into a population. He further calculates that to create a gene with 1000 base pairs, it would take 12 million x 1000 or 12 billion years. This is obviously too slow to support the creation of the human genome containing 3 billion base pairs. http://www.detectingtruth.com/?p=66 Second is that when we remove the biased methodology that materialists have imposed on the "similarity evidence" we find some very interesting things: The 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding "architectural plan" of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place. Of more clarity though, this "98.8% similarity evidence" is derived by materialists from a very biased methodology of presuming that the 1.5% of the genome, which directly codes for proteins, has complete precedence of consideration over the other remaining 98.5% of the genome which does not directly code for proteins. Yet even when considering just this 1.5% of the genome that codes for proteins, we find that the proteins, which are directly coded by that 1.5% of the genome, are shown to differ by a huge 80% difference between chimps and man. Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 How in the world did the proteins change by +80% while the genes, which supposedly coded for those proteins during evolutionary history, remain virtually unchanged? Why is this huge +80% anomaly ignored by materialists and only the biased genetic similarity stressed in the media? On top of this huge +80% difference in proteins, the oft quoted 98.8% DNA similarity is not even rigorously true in the first place. Just considering this 1.5% of the genome that directly codes for proteins, other recent comparisons of the protein coding genes, between chimps and man, have yielded a similarity of only 96%. Whereas, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by 6.4%, which gives a similarity of only 93.6% (Hahn). Even more realistically, to how we actually should be looking at the genomes from a investigative starting point, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity is closer to 85% to 90% when taking into account the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the true genome similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased "only 1.5% of the genome" studies of materialists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html as well, we are still early in this line of investigation ,,,yet even from this early starting point things are not looking good for the materialists in the least: Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 As well, it is now shown that over one thousand protein coding genes are completely unique between human and chimps: The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families - Jeffery P. Demuth Excerpt: Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. But if we to actually try to account for just one gene occuring by accident, much less several hundred orginating in a "poly-functional interweaved" way we find" the problem quickly outstrips the probabilistic resources of the universe (1 in 10^236 for genes: 1 in 10^77 for specific functional proteins) And on top of all this, the 80% of different proteins are not nearly as passive as materialists have led us to believe: Researchers Uncover New Kink In Gene Control: - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: a collaborative effort,, has uncovered more than 300 proteins that appear to control genes, a newly discovered function for all of these proteins previously known to play other roles in cells.,,,The team suspects that many more proteins encoded by the human genome might also be moonlighting to control genes,,, But the top off killer in all this, that clearly sets man apart as a distinct kind from the rest of the animals is that the genome is found to be severely poly-constrained to random mutations with ENCODE: Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ Encyclopedia Of DNA: New Findings Challenge Established Views On Human Genome: The ENCODE consortium's major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact. etc..etc...etc... The overall point being vjtorley, is that though the evolutionists may have "a" suggestive piece of evidence in the fossil record (which is by far not the continuous transition of fossils they need to establish just a first level order plausibility), the conclusive evidence they need to prove the evolution in the genome simply does not exist, all evidence that has been put forth by evolutionists for genetic similarity literally falls apart with the slightest breeze of scrutiny is applied: Frankly vjtorley I did not feel the need to defend my last point 14 in post 32 as rigorously as Mustela seems to think I should have since, in my eyes at least, the evolutionists frankly don't even have a empirical leg to stand on in the first place as far as the actual evidence is concerned: bornagain77

StephenB:

You don’t handle evidence-based refutations very well do you?

If you are asking me whether I believe the statements of real working scientists, Christians among them, that have told me (and you, BTW) that you are wrong instead of some guy on the internet who refuses to say whether he has any experience or training in science other than sniping at scientists from the safety of a tightly moderated blog? Well, what can I say, ya got me there. hummus man

Well I agree with everything you stated save for point one,,, common ancestry? shoot evolutionists can't even connect the two oldest "ancestors: For though life shares a optimal DNA code, which is a "miracle in and of itself, There simply is no smooth "gradual transition" to be found between these most ancient of life forms, bacteria and archaea, as even this following "evolution friendly" article clearly points out: Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,... Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common (between the bacteria and the archaea). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?page=1 About the only thing common in the ancestry that I can hold on to, especially considering the explosive appearance of radically new body plans in the Cambrian, would be the "commonality of descent" that God implements his plan with,,, bornagain77

bornagain77 (#81): As far as the human line is concerned, my position is as follows: 1. I would agree with Professor Michael Behe that a very strong case can be made for the common ancestry of all living organisms. That includes human beings. 2. I find it very interesting that none of Behe's scientific critics have been able to dent his thesis that there is an edge of evolution, as far as blind, undirected processes are concerned. Behe identifies this with the taxonomic level of either the genus or family. 3. The article by S. Huang which I linked to above in #80 provided evidence that human beings belong to a separate family - hominids - which appeared approximately 17.3 million years ago. 4. Nevertheless, a hominid is not necessarily a human being. If we're talking about the genus Homo, then the evidence indicates that this genus appeared suddenly, about 2 million years ago. Two paleoanthropologists have admitted in Nature in 2005 that we don’t know the direct ancestor of our genus Homo:

[Homo ergaster] marks such a radical departure from previous forms of Homo (such as H. habilis) in its height, reduced sexual dimorphism, long limbs and modern body proportions that it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa. Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin “without an ancestor, without a clear past.” [Robin Dennell & Wil Roebroeks, “An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa,” Nature, Vol. 438:1099-1104 (Dec. 22/29, 2005) (internal citations removed).]

A 2009 article (Texas Hold ’Em Part III: Calling Ronald Wetherington’s Bluffs About Human Evolution in His January Texas State Board of Education Testimony) by Casey Luskin at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/texas_hold_em_part_ii_calling_1.html#fn59 certainly gives the lie to claims that human evolution contains no gaps and no lack of transitional fossils, and that the origins of our species represents a gradualistic evolutionary change. To be fair, however, it has been suggested that the Dmanisi remains in Georgia represent a transition between Homo ergaster and earlier forms. See this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=m61bIJcOmosC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=Homo+erectus+%22without+an+ancestor%22&source=bl&ots=ITr5NRrHR_&sig=9OLI0vW7Pvcp_EgvP_-lWPoHGS4&hl=en&ei=cGjzSqqMO8OPkQXw7JWkAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Homo%20erectus%20%22without%20an%20ancestor%22&f=false 5. My own position is that the human brain is the most exquisitely complex organ known to exist in nature, so I am highly skeptical of claims that it evolved gradualistically. Some kind of intelligent guidance must have been required to explain its origin. 6. However, the human mind is not reducible to the brain, as I have argued elsewhere. The brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for human thought to occur. Thus I would also expect to find evidence of another quantum leap in the archeological record, either 600,000 or 200,000 years ago, as I argued above. 7. As far as I know, no families have appeared in the last two million years, and certainly none since the dawn of true human beings. vjtorley

Nice post vjtorley,,,I gonna borrow some of those quotes if you don't mind,, bornagain77

You know Mustela, I've been reflecting on your objection to my 14th point on post 32 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/guilt-by-association/#comment-338458 Now I find it interesting that you are not contesting none of the other 13 failed postulations of materialism, Such as a transcendent origin of the "material" universe. Or that time is not constant everywhere, or the fact the photosynthetic cell appeared on earth as soon as water appeared on earth, or the fact that the "simplest life' is more complex than any man made machine or even the Cambrian explosion or the general pattern of sudden appeareance of distinct kinds in the fossil record since the Cambrian,,,No all this seems to have slipped your attention and you pretend as if it has absolutely no bearing on point 14 (you accuse it of being a red herring, when in fact they are just 13 cold hard facts that bear directly on the matter of point 14),,,but instead of giving fair hearing to all this, you want to pick on what is a fairly modest observation that Humans as a "kind" are the last distinct kind to appear in the fossil record,,, But in reflection, I think it is not to bold at all on my part to make the claim, for even in the evolutionists in their very own own fossil graphs,,,, the graphs with the infamous dotted lines that we all love so well, those dotted lines that connect all the "current" tree (or is that bush) of hominids,,,, even in those graphs, Man is always the last to appear on the graph,,,, Now if a new type of ape were to have appeared since man arrived on the scene I am pretty sure evolutionists would have triple highlighted that on their graphs and I am also fairly certain it probably would have garnered National Geographic healines for at least a year! But No this is not the case,,,there Man sits all alone on all the graphs as the last distinct type to appear in the fossil record,,, connected with nothing but our beloved dotted line,,, and as Erst Mayr, a leading expert in "human evolution" has stated: "Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers." - Evolutionist Ernst Mayr or Ian Tattersall: “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) I just don't know what it is your missing Mustela,,,It is hard for me to believe that someone could either be so blind to the evidence or so deceptive but that is all that is left for me to think. --------------- By the way Mustela with ENCODE finding virtually 100% poly-functional complexity, the true genome similarity between Man and Chimps is this: Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html bornagain77

bornagain77 (#81) A few points on cichlids: 1. You are perfectly correct in asserting that cichlids have been around for much longer than human beings, or even hominids for that matter. Age of Cichlids: New Dates for Ancient Lake Fish Radiations by Martin J. Genner, Ole Seehausen, David H. Lunt, Domino A. Joyce, Paul W. Shaw, Gary R. Carvalho and George F. Turner, in Molecular Biology and Evolution, doi:10.1093/molbev/msm050.

Abstract: Timing divergence events allows us to infer the conditions under which biodiversity has evolved and gain important insights into the mechanisms driving evolution. Cichlid fishes are a model system for studying speciation and adaptive radiation, yet we have lacked reliable timescales for their evolution. Phylogenetic reconstructions are consistent with cichlid origins prior to Gondwanan landmass fragmentation 165-121 million years ago, considerably earlier than the first known fossil cichlids (Eocene). We examined the timing of cichlid evolution using a relaxed molecular clock calibrated with geological estimates for the ages of (i) Gondwanan fragmentation and (ii) cichlid fossils. Timescales of cichlid evolution derived from fossil-dated phylogenies of other bony fishes most closely matched those suggested by Gondwanan break-up calibrations, suggesting the Eocene origins and marine dispersal implied by the cichlid fossil record may be due to its incompleteness. (Emphases mine - VJT.)

2. Cichlids constitute a single family, with a very large number of species. According to Wikipedia :

Cichlids ... are fish from the family Cichlidae in the order Perciformes. The family Cichlidae, a major family of perciform fish, is both large and diverse. There are at least 1300 scientifically described species, making it one of the largest vertebrate families. Numerous new species are discovered annually, and many species remain undescribed. The actual number of species is therefore unclear, with estimates varying between 1,300 and 3,000 species.

3. Creationist Arthur Jones, whose doctoral thesis in biology was on cichlid fish, has written :

For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so.

Jones continues :

Developmental studies then showed that the enormous cichlid diversity (over 1,000 “species”) was actually produced by the endless permutation of a relatively small number of character states: 4 colors, ten or so basic pigment patterns and so on. The same characters (or character patterns) appeared “randomly” all over the cichlid distribution. The patterns of variation were “modular” or “mosaic”; evolutionary lines of descent were nowhere to be found. This kind of adaptive variation can occur quite rapidly (since it involves only what was already there) and some instances of cichlid “radiation” (in geologically “recent” lakes) were indeed dateable (by evolutionists) to within timespans of no more than a few thousand years.

In other words: here we have a creationist biologist who readily acknowledges that the members of a fish family (Cichlidae) share a common ancestry. 4. According to an article in Science magazine (Vol. 300. no. 5617, pp. 325 - 329, April 11, 2003) entitled Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks, Axel Meyer (abstract available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/5617/325 ), 500 species of cichlid fish have evolved in the last 100,000 years in a single lake:

Lake Victoria harbors a unique species-rich flock of more than 500 endemic haplochromine cichlid fishes. The origin, age, and mechanism of diversification of this extraordinary radiation are still debated. Geological evidence suggests that the lake dried out completely about 14,700 years ago. On the basis of phylogenetic analyses of almost 300 DNA sequences of the mitochondrial control region of East African cichlids, we find that the Lake Victoria cichlid flock is derived from the geologically older Lake Kivu. We suggest that the two seeding lineages may have already been lake-adapted when they colonized Lake Victoria. A haplotype analysis further shows that the most recent desiccation of Lake Victoria did not lead to a complete extinction of its endemic cichlid fauna and that the major lineage diversification took place about 100,000 years ago.

In other words, as far as cichlids are concerned, the last time any intelligent intervention in their origin could have taken place would have been 165-121 million years ago. vjtorley

---hummus man: "Shorter StephenB: What do those darn scientists know about science anyways. Take the word of some guy commenting on a blog." You don't handle evidence-based refutations very well do you? StephenB

StephenB:

Sorry, your attempted arguments from authority are not working. I have already proven my point with plenty of evidence to support my position

Shorter StephenB: What do those darn scientists know about science anyways. Take the word of some guy commenting on a blog. Gotcha. hummus man

----hummus man: "When one wants to understand the ground rules under which scientists worked prior to the 1980’s, the logical place to start is with a scientist that was working during that time. Scientists and science educators who worked during that time have told you that you are wrong." Sorry, your attempted arguments from authority are not working. I have already proven my point with plenty of evidence to support my position, and I have plenty more in reserve. You have nothing, as is clear from your posturing. You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by simply reading the FAQ. This is basic stuff. StephenB

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths Yoel Rak, Avishag Ginzburg, and Eli Geffen Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, April 17 2007, 104: 6568-6572, doi 10.1073/pnas.0606454104 Abstract: Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario. bornagain77

Mustela, if I want a lecture on being honest with empirical evidence I sure as heck ain't gone to go to a Darwinist to get it!!! I can assure you, as sure as I am breathing right now, that almost every Darwinist/Atheist I have ever met would not know how to be honest with evidence if their very soul depended on it (which is quite another large topic unto itself). Do you really want to be honest with the evidence Mustela? lets see if you can be Let's try with Lucy? The following sources show that "Lucy", the supposed superstar of human evolution, was an ape:

"these australopith specimens (Lucy) can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes" Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296

"The australopithecines (Lucy) known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage." Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis;

Israeli Researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans"; Apr 16, 2007 The Mandibular ramus morphology (lower jaw bone) on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/04/24/lucy_demoted_from_the_human_ancestral_li

"The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." Lord Solly Zuckerman - Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist

Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - humorous video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJelssgOgE

My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism: Excerpt: Collard and Aiello’s article also reports that we now have “good evidence” that A. afarensis (including Lucy) “‘knuckle-walked’, as chimps and gorillas do today.” Due to their evolutionary preconception that Lucy was a bipedal precursor to our genus Homo, they call this plain evidence that Lucy knuckled-walked “counterintuitive.” They suggest the possibility that “the locomotor repertoire of A. afarensis included forms of bipedalism, climbing and knuckle-walking.” This is a tenuous proposal, however, as knuckle-walking is obviously very different from bipedal locomotion. Collard and Aiello suggest avoiding the "counterintuitive" evidence that Lucy climbed and knuckle-walked by discarding it as unused “primitive retentions” from her ancestors.---"We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, "When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/my_pilgrimage_to_lucys_holy_re.html#more

“Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/pdf/2007_BROMAGE_IADR_1470.pdf

bornagain77

bornagain77 at 86, You've moved on from red herrings to an attempt to shift the burden of proof. What you haven't done is support your baseless assertion from post 32. The honest approach is to admit that you cannot and retract the statement. Mustela Nivalis

StevenB, you are mostly just restating the same thing over and over again, but I can boil it all down to one thing.

Professional scientists? As a long time lurker, you should know that we don’t accept arguments from authority on this site.

When one wants to understand the ground rules under which scientists worked prior to the 1980's, the logical place to start is with a scientist that was working during that time. Scientists and science educators who worked during that time have told you that you are wrong. So, I have to come back to a question you did not answer. You purport to know more about how science worked than actual, you know, working scientists. So, again I have to ask if what you do for a living? Are you a scientist? hummus man

----hummus man: "Actually, as a long time lurker, I’ve already made a note of your tactics in this discussion." You mean the tactic of offering reasoned arguments and providing evidence when necessary? ----"When professional scientists and science educators point out that science has been conducted via methodological naturalism (if not by that specific name) for centuries, your next step is to point out a famous scientist that is a theist and conflate their rejection of philosophical naturalism into a presumed rejection of methodological naturalism and hope nobody catches on to the switcheroo." Professional scientists? As a long time lurker, you should know that we don't accept arguments from authority on this site. Once again, you miss the point: Studying "natural causes" is not synonymous with establishing institutional rules declaring that nothing other than natural causes can be admitted in the name of science. I am sorry if you cannot understand that. As I say, I have numerous examples. I could provide one after the other all day long. From the Kansas Science Standards: [Begun informally in the 1980’s, codified in the 1990’s, and restated in 2005] Explaining Methodological Naturalism: “Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the natural world around us………..”As is practical in the late 20th and early 21st Century, science is RESTRICTED TO EXPLAINING ONLY THE NATURAL WORLD, USING ONLY NATURAL CAUSES.” What is it about the word "restricted" that you do not understand? Note that by that standard, Intelligent Design is ruled out apriori as non-scientific, since it seeks to offer explanations that are not solely natural. That was the idea. To rule out ID even before it enters the arena. Notice also, by the way, that there is no question of the hard and fast distinction between "metaphysical naturalism" and "methdological naturalism." The arbitrary rule--- ---it is arbitrary and it is a rule--- states that the scientist must study nature as if nature is all there is. If he doesn't approach nature that way, he isn't doing science. Again, no one has ever defined science that way prior to the 1980’s. There is a very good reason for that. The academy is threatened by ID, so it seeks to use it power by defining science in a novel and restricted way. If you think science has been defined this way previously, provide your evidence. Again, I can save you the trouble because I have already been there. The evidence doesn't exist because, prior to the 1980's science wasn't defined that way. StephenB

Mustela, evolutionists have completely failed to provide a continuous transition from apes to man, foryou to deny this reveals your philosophical bias of materialism, a bias which has NO foundation in science proper, I could cite numerous studies refuting lucy, Australopithecus , but you would ignore them as well,,, seeing as you will not concede even that fact, or the fact that materialism is bankrupt as a philosophy in the first place what is the point in arguing with you,,,I would have better luck going down to the mental institution and trying to help someone who at least knows he is delusional instead of you who has no clue. bornagain77

bornagain77 at 79, You continue to fail to support your assertion. Here it is again: "14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth. Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record." Please provide a cite to peer reviewed literature that supports the two parts of your claim, namely: 1) Homo sapiens appeared "suddenly" in the fossil record, and 2) Homo sapiens is the last "major fossil form" to have appeared in the fossil record. The first is clearly incorrect, given just the fossils you yourself mentioned. The second requires a definition of "major fossil form", and you'll still not be able to support it. I suggest you admit that you made an unsupported assertion and retract it with whatever good grace remains to be had. PS: Biblical quotations and YouTube videos are no peer reviewed scientific literature. Mustela Nivalis

STephenB

The central point is the Darwinist proclivity to insist that science be defined SOLELY as the study of natural causes–that it must be EXCLUSIVELY rather than PRIMARILY about natural causes. That is a new developoment calculated to discredit the design inference. Please make a note of it.

Actually, as a long time lurker, I've already made a note of your tactics in this discussion. When professional scientists and science educators point out that science has been conducted via methodological naturalism (if not by that specific name) for centuries, your next step is to point out a famous scientist that is a theist and conflate their rejection of philosophical naturalism into a presumed rejection of methodological naturalism and hope nobody catches on to the switcheroo. I am curious about one thing, Steven. You speak with great authority about how science was conducted 20 plus years ago. What exactly do you do for a living? Are you a professional scientist? hummus man

Vj torley, This may clearly illustrate for you the extreme bias that evolutionists artificial impose on the fossil evidence: “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/pdf/2007_BROMAGE_IADR_1470.pdf bornagain77

For prime example of the flimsy "similarity evidence", used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if true, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this "lack of conclusiveness" is due to concerns with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded in the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1bAX93zQ5o This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show "exceedingly rare" major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA code. Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine This includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations. ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#footnote19 Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs If that wasn't enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for "Genetic Reductionism": DNA: The Alphabet of Life - David Klinghoffer Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell's building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn't there. Instead, "It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/dna_the_alphabet_of_life.html Higher Levels Of Information In Life - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,, Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding "architectural plan" of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place. Of more clarity though, this "98.8% similarity evidence" is derived by materialists from a very biased methodology of presuming that the 1.5% of the genome, which directly codes for proteins, has complete precedence of consideration over the other remaining 98.5% of the genome which does not directly code for proteins. Yet even when considering just this 1.5% of the genome that codes for proteins, we find that the proteins, which are directly coded by that 1.5% of the genome, are shown to differ by a huge 80% difference between chimps and man. Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 How in the world did the proteins change by +80% while the genes, which supposedly code for those proteins, remained virtually unchanged? Why is this huge +80% anomaly ignored by materialists and only the biased genetic similarity stressed? On top of this huge +80% difference in proteins, the oft quoted 98.8% DNA similarity is not even rigorously true in the first place. Just considering this 1.5% of the genome, other recent comparisons of the protein coding genes, between chimps and man, have yielded a similarity of only 96%. Whereas, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by 6.4%, which gives a similarity of only 93.6% (Hahn). Even more realistically, to how we actually should be looking at the genomes from a investigative starting point, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity is closer to 85% to 90% when taking into account the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the true genome similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased "only 1.5% of the genome" studies of materialists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1366432/Chimpanzee.html More Chimp-Human Genome Problems - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: Even more interesting, at these locations the chimp's genome is quite similar to other primates--it is the human that differs from the rest, not the chimp. (human accelerated regions (HARs) . http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-chimp-human-genome-problems.html On top of that the Junk regions are actually found to be "more functional" than the protein coding regions: Astonishing DNA complexity update Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update bornagain77

Hmm vjtorley, Shoot I steadfastly maintain that humans are the last major "kind" of fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Cichlid fish have certainly been in the fossil record as a kind far longer than man has: Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1TDNHNvZRk As well Cichlid fish happen to show conformation to genetic entropy which is exactly what is predicted by the Theistic model of sudden creation of kinds": African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research: "The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----surprising implication of the study?---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905 "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard I reiterate this: This following site has a graph which was made by an evolutionist. The graph can be enlarged by clicking on the image. The graph, though made by an evolutionist with an extreme bias for "shoehorning evidence", shows just how stable each of the hominid species is over the long periods of time they are found in the fossil record, as well as each hominid's "abrupt appearance" in the fossil record. Man is, of course, the last hominid species to "abruptly appear" in the graph. As well the graph shows the only actual transition ever witnessed by anyone, between any of the stable hominid lineages on the graph, is in the imaginations of the evolutionists who draw the connecting lines between the stable hominid lineages on such graphs. I guess drawing connecting lines on such graphs represents hard physical evidence for them. Perhaps they can forgive me for being less than impressed with their imaginary "lines of evidence" for human evolution. Hominid Fossil Graph http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif etc...etc... Does genetic evidence help you vj? NO! bornagain77

Hi everyone. I've been thinking about bornagain77's claim that human beings are the last of God's creations. Right now I'm reading Professor William Dembski's fascinating book, The End of Christianity (see http://www.amazon.com/End-Christianity-Finding-Good-World/dp/0805427430 ), which makes an interesting distinction between two different kinds of time: kairos (reflecting the orer of events in God's plan) and chronos (reflecting the chronological order of events in the nexus of causes and effects that we observe in the natural world). Personally, I'm not convinced that the claim that humans were chronologically the last of God's creations is one that need be drawn from a careful reading of Genesis. We might have simply been the last creation in God's plan for the world, which need not follow the chronological order of events in the fossil record, since God transcends time. Still, it would be very interesting if it turned out that we were chronologically the last of God's creations. But how would one ascertain this? New species have certainly appeared since the first human beings emerged. (Think about cichlid fish.) However, even creationists don't claim that each species was created by God. Typically that claim is made for genera or families. Then I thought about Professor Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution. Although Behe insists on common descent, he also believes that blind processes can take us only so far, and he places the edge of undirected evolution at either the genus or family level. OK. Let's go with families. Here's my question. What is the most recent family of organisms to appear on Earth? And what is the most recent genus? Does anyone know? By the way, some of you might be wondering about where human beings fit in here. Here's an interesting paper for you to peruse: Primate phylogeny: molecular evidence for a pongid clade excluding humans and a prosimian clade containing tarsiers by Shi Huang, State Key Laboratory of Medical Genetics, Xiangya Medical School, Central South University, Hunan, China, at http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3794/version/1 The upshot of Huang’s paper is that we’re not apes after all. We belong in a separate clade. In that case, 4.4 million-year-old Ardipithecus is not the common ancestor of humans and apes. It's way too late to be anything of the sort.

Excerpt from Abstract: Interpretations of molecular data by the modern evolution theory are often sharply inconsistent with paleontological results. This is to be expected since the theory is only true for microevolution and yet fossil records are mostly about macroevolution. The maximum genetic diversity (MGD) hypothesis is a more coherent and complete account of evolution that has yet to meet a single contradiction. Here, molecular data were analyzed based on the MGD to resolve key questions of primate phylogeny. A new method was developed from a novel result predicted by the MGD: genetic non-equidistance to a simpler taxon only in slow but not in fast evolving sequences given nonequidistance in time. This 'slow clock' method showed that humans are genetically more distant to orangutans than African apes are and separated from the pongid clade (containing orangutan and African apes) 17.3 million years ago...

The paper contains a very powerful critique of the "molecular clock," which Huang proposes to replace with a new clock of his own that matches the fossil record much more closely than the clock which is currently in favor. (Huang is of course a convinced evolutionist.) If Huang is right, the human family appeared about 17.3 million years ago. And he's not alone in his opinion. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Hominidae :

An alternative minority viewpoint is that Homo diverged from a common ancestor with Pongo [the orang-utan - VJT] perhaps as early as 13 million years ago while Pan is more closely related to Gorilla. This alternative is supported by characteristics uniquely shared between humans and orangutans such as dental structure, thick enamel, shoulder blade structure, thick posterior palate, single incisive foramen, high estriol production, and beard and mustache. There are at least 28 well corroborated such features compared with perhaps as little as one unique feature shared between humans and chimpanzees. It is widely believed that these physical features are misleading, but an alternative possibility is that orangutans have undergone more genetic change than humans and African apes have since their split from the common ancestor. If this had happened, then the apparent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees would not necessarily be due to a close evolutionary relationship. This theory has been proposed as an explanation as to why early hominids such as the australopiths not only look more like orangutans than either African ape, but also share characters unique to orangutans and their close fossil relatives such as a thickened posteror palate and anterior zygomatic roots. (Emphasis mine - VJT.)

The genus Homo is estimated to have appeared 2.0 to 2.5 million years ago (depending on how you classify Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis). If we're talking about human beings with true intelligence (e.g. humans who were able to formulate abstract questions about right and wrong, and debate questions like the existence of God and the reality of an afterlife), then there are two possible dates, depending on whether you regard the Neanderthals as truly human: 600,000 years ago (the date of the emergence of Homo heidelbergensis) or 200,000 (the date of the emergence of Homo sapiens). This is just a post to get the ball rolling, so to speak. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks. vjtorley

Hmm Mustela, I point out, very clearly, that you have no philosophical foundation in reality in the first place in which to make coherent arguments, and you so non-chalantly call it a red herring. Did you calling it a Red Herring do anything to prove materialism had a coherent foundation in reality? Of course not. So Mustela if you have one shred of intellectual honesty in you, which I highly doubt by the way, How in the world do you presuppose a demonstratively false foundation to support any materialistic hypothesis of non-teleological evolution built upon such a non-existent foundation? For a man to claim he can build a castle on quicksand, or even in the air, we would call him delusional, Why should I think any more of you than he? My cites are on post 39 and 40, here is a partial repost: This following quote, by a leading evolutionist in the field, is candid in its admission of the gaps for the evidence of human evolution. A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that “The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins: Even though the preceding comment from a leading evolutionist in the field is crushing, to the smooth transition needed for the materialist to make his case for human evolution, you would think a materialist would at least have some sort of evidence he could cling to with Homo erectus and rudolfensis fossils Mayr cited. Yet when we look at the evidence presented by the materialists themselves, for the proposed evolution of Homo erectus, the evidence is anything but straight forward and appears to be, once again, “shoehorned” to fit their preconceived philosophical bias: Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens – 05/27/2009 – Creation Safaris: Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period….”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: “Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be.” By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.” This following quote sums up what materialists appear to be doing with this Homo erectus and rudolfensis, “hominid in the middle”, evidence: “But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with.” The first line of the ” Evolution of the Genus Homo” paper illustrates the poverty of the fossil record in establishing human evolution: Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.” Though the authors of the preceding paper appear to be thoroughly mystified by the fossil record, they never seem to give up their blind faith in evolution despite the disparity they see first hand in the fossil record. In spite of their philosophical bias, I have to hand it to them for being fairly honest with the evidence though. I especially like how the authors draw out this following “what it means to be human” distinction in their paper: “although Homo neanderthalensis had a large brain, it left no unequivocal evidence of the symbolic consciousness that makes our species unique.” — “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” The authors try to find some evolutionary/materialistic reason for the extremely unique “information capacity” of humans, but of course they never find a coherent reason. Indeed why should we ever consider a process, which is incapable of ever generating complex functional information at even the most fundamental levels of molecular biology, to suddenly, magically, have the ability to generate our brain? A brain which has been repeatedly referred to as “the Most Complex Structure in the Universe”? A brain which somehow has within itself the capacity to understand, and generate, large amounts of complex functional information? The authors never seem to consider the “spiritual angle” for why we would have such a unique capacity for such abundant information processing. Genesis 3:8 And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day… John 1:1-1 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Human Evolution? Big Bang of Language, Clothes, Tools and Art – Hugh Ross – audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRNmiO6f_c4 This following study, though of materialistic bent, offers strong support that Humans are extremely unique in this “advanced information” capacity: Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds: Excerpt: There is a profound functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. We argue that this discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture can explain. We hypothesize that the cognitive discontinuity between human and nonhuman animals is largely due to the degree to which human and nonhuman minds are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (i.e. able to understand information). These following studies highlight the difficulty materialists have in fitting mental abilities into an evolutionary scenario: Origin of Soulish Animals: Excerpt: Bolhuis and Wynne contrast the cognitive capacities of birds and primates.,,, They also refer to an experiment demonstrating that “crows can also work out how to use one tool to obtain a second with which they can retrieve food, a skill that monkeys and apes struggle to master.” Evidently, certain bird species exhibit greater powers of the mind than do apes. New Caledonian Crows Exceed Apes/Chimps at Trap-tube Experiment – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwFLJBCk5sk Even the lowly honey bee is shown to have a capacity to communicate information to other bees. Thus this comparison of abilities to manipulate rudimentary information is fraught with difficulties for the materialist to make his case for evolution with: Are you disbelieving in all this Mustela?,,perhaps angry at me? Are you saying "It just can't be? Well I have a better way to break your delusion,,, you name your one most concrete proof for human evolution, And I promise to thoroughly demolish it in front of your eyes. Deal? bornagain77

Mustela Nivalis: "Thank you, [hummus man] didn’t realize that this had already been explained to StephenB. You saved me a few posts by skipping ahead." Your misguided ally cannot help you because he, too, does not understand the subject matter. It is an open and shut case and you are on the wrong side of it. Methodological naturalism is an arbitrary rule that never existed previously to 1980. That is an irrefutable fact as is evident from the fact that you cannot refute it. StephenB

----hummus man: "I think you’ve been corrected on this before. While the term “methodological naturalism” is indeed a recent construct, the idea embodied by it is centuries old. See here." I am not the one being corrected but rather the one doing the correcting. Scientists have been studying natural causes ever since Thales. That is not the issue. The central point is the Darwinist proclivity to insist that science be defined SOLELY as the study of natural causes--that it must be EXCLUSIVELY rather than PRIMARILY about natural causes. That is a new developoment calculated to discredit the design inference. Please make a note of it. StephenB

hummus man at 73, "StevenB: 'Nothing like this ever existed before the 1980’s. You will not find the term methodological naturalism in any philosophy of science textbook prior to that time, nor will you find it in any history of the philosophy of science.' I think you’ve been corrected on this before. While the term 'methodological naturalism' is indeed a recent construct, the idea embodied by it is centuries old. See here." Thank you, I didn't realize that this had already been explained to StephenB. You saved me a few posts by skipping ahead. ;-) Mustela Nivalis

bornagain77 at 69, That post is a complete red herring. In 68 I asked for you to please reproduce cites to any peer reviewed papers you have referenced that support your claim that: “14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth. Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record.” You have not done so. When one is incapable of defending an assertion in a discussion such as this, intellectual integrity demands that the claim be retracted. I await your response. Mustela Nivalis

tragic mishap: I appreciate your comments. I was thinking more about court cases and the situation in the US classrooms than the science itself when I referred to Young Earth Creationists. StephenB, "Thus, ID’s methodology must be rigorously based on observation, data, and it must produce conclusions that are arrived at without prejudice—it must follow where the evidence leads, EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE DISCONFIRMES HIS FAITH, which happily, it does not.” I sincerely hope you find some quiet time for yourself and reflect on what you just told me. Scientific knowledge changes. If Paul tried and failed to figure out the composition of rocks, would he conclude there must not be a God? He looked at nature and saw that it is OBVIOUS there is a God, and in Romans 1:19, that is because "God has made it plain…" (NIV). The things of God are "clearly seen being understood from what has been made" (v20). Religion and faith are a mystery, but they are deeper than science. Yes, we can reason about God, but some people are making God-given human reason dangerously close to its own god. womanatwell

StevenB:

othing like this ever existed before the 1980’s. You will not find the term methodological naturalism in any philosophy of science textbook prior to that time, nor will you find it in any history of the philosophy of science.

I think you've been corrected on this before. While the term "methodological naturalism" is indeed a recent construct, the idea embodied by it is centuries old. See here. hummus man

---"Mustela Nivalis: "Really? Could you please provide a cite to when exactly in the 1908s that this was decided and by whom?" [Methodological naturalism is a recently imposed rule]" Yes, really. Examples are all over the place. It wasn't initiated by any one person. Like minded Darwinists just started doing it to counter the evidence from ID scientists. Here is one from about 13 years ago from Scott, Eugenie C., 1996, "Creationism, Ideology, and Science," in Gross, Levitt, and Lewis, p. 505-522. Defining methodological naturalism: “Science is a limited way of knowing, in which practitioners attempt to explain the natural world using natural explanations. By definition, science cannot consider supernatural explanations...So by definition, if an individual is attempting to explain some aspect of the natural world using science, he or she must act as if there were no supernatural forces operating on it. I think this methodological materialism is well understood by evolutionists.” Lewinton, Rule, Miller, and many others have made the same point. I trust that you don't want all the quotes and dates. It was on the basis of this and other non-scientific intrusions that a partisan Judge ruled that ID is not science. Nothing like this ever existed before the 1980’s. You will not find the term methodological naturalism in any philosophy of science textbook prior to that time, nor will you find it in any history of the philosophy of science. If you think otherwise, go ahead and try to find a book [or article] prior to that time that defines science that way. I can save you the trouble, though, because I have already gone down that road. StephenB

Mustela Nivalis, you are wrong and the overwhelming majority of evidence proves it. Since this is perfectly self-evident to any intelligent person, I feel no need to cite any evidence. I will allow you to carry on in your delusions. So...carry on, just remember how wrong you are. tragic mishap

You cite your proof for materialism and I shall "reproduce" what is already cited. bornagain77

Mustela, could you please cite the reference that materialism is the "absolute truth" for reality. Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world. http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904125/k.E94E/Why_Quantum_Theory_Does_Not_Support_Materialism.htm Further excerpt: The ground has now been laid to summarize an argument showing not only that quantum theory does not support materialism but also that it is incompatible with materialism. The argument can be formulated in terms of the following premises and conclusion: P1. Materialism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them. P2. The explanatory resources of materialism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes. P3. Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in light of nonlocalizability) the identity of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or characterized if the explanatory constraints of materialism are preserved. P4. These quantum phenomena require an explanation. ____________________________________________________________ C Therefore, materialism/naturalism/physicalism is irremediably deficient as a worldview, and consequently should be rejected as false and inadequate. Thus Mustela, since Materialism is shown to be false why should it even be given the time of day in these questions of origins? Of course you will probably ignore all this but the cold hard fact is that you have no basis in reality to make your case in the first place! bornagain77

bornagain77 at 66, "It is funny I quote leading paleontologists and geneticists in the world show peer-review sources..." Please reproduce cites to any peer reviewed papers you have referenced that support your claim that: "14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth. Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record." Mustela Nivalis

StephenB at 50, —-Mustela Nivalis: “Methodological naturalism is not an “artificial imposition.” It has been empirically demonstrated to allow science to make significant progress, in large part by virtue of being self-correcting." "Incorrect. Methodological naturalism is a presumed line of demarcation between science and non-science— a rule which declares that true science must study nature “as if nature is all there is.” Prior to the 1980’s, no such rule existed. That is simply a fact." Really? Could you please provide a cite to when exactly in the 1908s that this was decided and by whom? Mustela Nivalis

Mustela, It is funny I quote leading paleontologists and geneticists in the world show peer-review sources that show the "genetic evidence is anything but "Darwinian, and then you in all your smugness come with no peer-review whatsoever , based soley on you unimpecable authority I guess, and declare the matter settled,,,well maybe in you self-assured condescending manner you have made your case but in my eyes you are just trying to sooth your own doubts by mindlessly parroting what all other Darwinbots do on this site without ever truly addressing the empirical evidence that is presented head on,,,Myself I really don't care what you believe ,,,you can believe you are the Emperor of the world for all I care, but I do care for you to come on this site and in such condescending manner without one shred of science backing you up pretending you have made a case, THAT SIR is disrespectful to all the contributers here on UD and you would do well to take your fantasies elsewhere if you are not going to "play fair"!!! bornagain77

bornagain77 at 51, "Mustela, so you have bought, hook line and sinker, that whales and horses, and all other animals, are all settled matters as far as empirical science is concerned?" The richness of the fossil record with respect to those two lineages, the overwhelming genetic evidence, and the massive amount of supporting empirical evidence for modern evolutionary theory from many scientific disciplines make it clear that these issues are settled. Recognizing this requires only a desire to learn and a modicum of intellectual honesty; there is no need to take any of it on faith. "Well I tend to require at least some modicum of evidential respectability before I accept such swill as you seem more than eager to belly up in the mud for...." When you follow this statement up with more YouTube videos rather than references to the peer reviewed literature, one can be forgiven for questioning your respect for empirical science. The fact remains that your claim in 32 is unsupported and unsupportable. Mustela Nivalis

----womanatwell: "In your first response to me, ID had nothing to do with religion, but in your second response, IDists are defenders of the faith (at least as I understood you)." observation and with a firm faith that the universe is rational I am well aware of the tactics of atheists, but just because they slip and slide does not mean that you must also. You need the right foundation on which to stand firm" Let me try to come at this from another angle. Religion and science are, as you suggest, perfectly compatible; both are, as you indicate, based on a rational foundation, which can be characterized as the following: [a] We have rational minds, [b] we live in a rational universe, and [c] there is a correspondence between the two. Indeed, as Bornagain 77 has pointed out, the scientific revolution began with the Christian idea that God set up the universe for discovery---that God left clues---that Galileo, Newton and company were "thinking God's thoughts after him." In other words, their religious faith provided the impetus for the whole scientific enterprise in the first place. That is about as firm as foundations get, and I do stand on it. On the other hand, science has its methods and procedures, all of which help to show that some truths can be arrived at by simply observing the universe, recording and interpreting data, and following wherever the evidence [NOT NECESSARILY FAITH] leads. That is what a rational universe is like. It contains clues that, if interpreted correctly, lead to the creator who left the clues. As is says in Romans 1:20. God’s existence is made evident by his handiwork. That is a philosophical statement based on reason and observation, not a statement of faith. The Bible is here telling us that we can come to know the existence of God through the effects of his creation without first believing in God. That is why the passage is so important. In that same spirit, science studies that handiwork, and, if its methodology is sound, it will reveal in nature truths that are consistent with the truths God revealed in his word. That is what we mean by the “unity of truth.” God did, after all, reveal himself in Scripture and in nature so that we could come to know of his existence in TWO ways, not just one. Thus, if the evidence confirms the faith, it is all the more impressive. Newton was inspired to study the universe because he believed in God’s rational creation, but he discovered nature’s laws based solely on the observed data. Similarly, ID’s observations, such as the biological patterns in a DNA molecule, or the cosmologically fined-tuned constants, allow us to draw inferences about what nature is like without falling back on our belief that God created it. If we had to fall back on that faith as part of the methodology, [not the foundation for the methodology] it would no longer be an inference, it would be a presupposition, and, as a result, the science would be fatally compromised---and unpersuasive. People who call us "creaionists" are saying just that--that we are stacking the deck by injecting our faith into our methods. On the contrary, The ID scientist must be able to tell the world that, although he may believe in a designer as an article of faith, the data, which is based on observation, CONFIRMS HIS FAITH. If it was based on what he believes, it could not confirm what he believes. Thus, ID’s methodology must be rigorously based on observation, data, and it must produce conclusions that are arrived at without prejudice---it must follow where the evidence leads, EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE DISCONFIRMES HIS FAITH, which happily, it does not. That is the only way that the results can mean anything. Otherwise, the critic can rightly object that the conclusions were imbedded in hypothesis all along, and therefore reflect a faith commitment, not a reasoned result. StephenB

Science and religion should not be in conflict and in fact I believe they are not since there is one truth. I have not found any science that interferes with my own personal religious beliefs. However, some on both sides of the argument seem to be driven by religious beliefs that presuppose the science they must believe in. These are atheists, YEC's and TE's. Each group is ideological driven in what can be good science. ID does not suffer this impediment. jerry

Economics does not have anything to do with religion but many who are religious will defend vigorously certain economic approaches. Obviously economics impinges on religion and religion impinges on economics. Sloppy thinking is when one tries to equate the two when they are both discussed in the same context. jerry

StephenB, In your first response to me, ID had nothing to do with religion, but in your second response, IDists are defenders of the faith (at least as I understood you). I am well aware of the tactics of atheists, but just because they slip and slide does not mean that you must also. You need the right foundation on which to stand firm. womanatwell

----womanatwell: “You have changed the definition of creationist in your answer. I’ll repeat as Ostling defined it:” When Darwinists [and the elitist press] call ID scientists "creationists," they are using my definition [casting ID scientists as those whose methodology depends on religious faith] That is the way Judge “copycat” Jones ruled at Dover, and that is the definition that Darwinists cling to as a means of discrediting the design inference, which in no way depends on religion. ----“Most Americans are creationists in the sense of belief in God as the Creator taught by Christianity, Islam and Judaism.” Darwinists use fluid and changing definitions to create confusion. Thus, if correct them on their false characterizations the follow from the narrow definition above, and the one they use as a weapon to discredit ID, they simply switch back to the broad definition while holding fast the charges leveled with the narrow decision. It doesn’t get any more dishonest than that. ----“I have read the related FAQ’s (although it was a while ago). I understand the delineation of specified complexity and irreducible complexity as science, as ID advocates have defined them. However, I think the IDists who are believers need to refocus on religion in relation to science.” I’ll pass the word along to them that they need to adjust their goals to fit your agenda. In any case, ID has already indicated that science and religion are related, so there is no need to emphasize the point further, especially in an environment that tries to make more out of it than is there and falsely accuses them of allowing their religion to leak into their scientific methodology. Still, Dembski, for example, has pointed out that ID science can be expressed as the “Logos Theory” of the Gospel, which is precisely the kind of points that you would like to see made. Everything depends on context. However, Darwinsits do not understand context. Thus, when Dembski made his statement, they ignored the context, and dishonestly claimed that his religion leaks into his scientific methodology. Yet, when I ask these same Darwinists how and where such a thing ever happened, or even how it could happen, they withdraw from the discussion. Barbara Forrest wrote a whole book doing that very thing---that is, equating ID science with religion and testifying to that effect at the Dover trial---or haven’t you heard? It is on the strength of that lie that the academy has taken the official position that ID is religion and not science. ----Remember that believers do not have to have design in biological life proven to them. They know already that it is designed. So science is different to believers—it is the study of designed entities. If IDists are trying to prove design, it is only to non-believers they need prove it. However, there is still a question in how it was designed, which can occupy IDists in their wrangling with theistic evolutionists.” The issue is not which paradigms future ID scientists might be able to come up with in the future. The issue is the paradigms they are using right now that are being misrepresented. ID methodology does not address the process that explains “how” design occurs any more than it can address the process that explains how Mozart conceived his compositions. Science can explain how the piano hammer hits the string and creates a musical sound; it cannot explain how the artist conceived the sequence of the notes to be played. What it can do is illuminate Darwinists to the fact that, against their materialist sensibilities, the sequence was designed. Darwinists think interactive matter can explain it, which is, of course, ridiculous. You, on the other hand, would have ID scientists explain Mozart’s process of conceiving music, [or the Creator’s process of designing a universe] something that likely cannot be explained. ----“The scientific materialists have had creationists on the run this past century and it is time to unite. The young-earth creationists have been left high and dry by other Christians and that is not right. When believers see science as more important than faith, they do not stand in the right place. The IDists have been doing good work on how to present science in the classroom, but we first need the right perspective to best see what we need.” I think that are operating under a false assumption when you suggest that ID advocates think science is more important than faith. No ID scientist ever subordinated the latter to the former. Quite the contrary, Behe, Dembski, Myers, as well as many like myself, refuse to compromise even one portion of their faith in the name of science. That is because we all realize that there is only one truth with many aspects. It is the theistic evolutionists, who believe that truth is divided---who hold that there is one truth for theology and another for science---who jettison Christian doctrines such as “the fall,” original sin, and singularity of our first parents in order to maintain their precious Darwinist paradigm. Perhaps you would be happier with someone like Hugh Ross, who approaches things in exactly the way you prefer. On the other hand, if you want ID to unite, why not come to us rather than ask us to come to you. StephenB

lol, that came out all wrong. I think Christians have left YECs "high and dry" for reasons that seem good to them. I don't believe the reason is primarily to distance themselves from a viewpoint that is ridiculed in polite society. I prefer to believe that they have an honest opinion that the evidence points to an old earth and some form of common descent. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. tragic mishap

womanatwell:

The young-earth creationists have been left high and dry by other Christians and that is not right.

I'm a YEC, but I will actually defend anyone's right to follow the evidence where it leads. For me, a historical event should refer to historical evidence, but I understand those who believe science can be trusted to make giant extrapolations from observed data. tragic mishap

StephenB, You have changed the definition of creationist in your answer. I'll repeat as Ostling defined it:

Most Americans are creationists in the sense of belief in God as the Creator taught by Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

I have read the related FAQ's (although it was a while ago). I understand the delineation of specified complexity and irreducible complexity as science, as ID advocates have defined them. However, I think the IDists who are believers need to refocus on religion in relation to science. Remember that believers do not have to have design in biological life proven to them. They know already that it is designed. So science is different to believers—it is the study of designed entities. If IDists are trying to prove design, it is only to non-believers they need prove it. However, there is still a question in how it was designed, which can occupy IDists in their wrangling with theistic evolutionists. The scientific materialists have had creationists on the run this past century and it is time to unite. The young-earth creationists have been left high and dry by other Christians and that is not right. When believers see science as more important than faith, they do not stand in the right place. The IDists have been doing good work on how to present science in the classroom, but we first need the right perspective to best see what we need. womanatwell

That is right FG. Creation is about where things ultimately come from. That is creation has to do with the origin of matter. While modern science really cannot investigate this, that does not stop materialists from speculating that matter originated from "another universe" parlaying into ours somehow. But Intelligent Design is only interested in how we can establish is some structure was designed or the result of natural laws and chance. We design cars by building them from other materials. In a sense design is an evolutionary process- just a "teleological" one. So ID is concerned with detecting teleology. If on the other hand I was a God or had magic and was able to simply "create a car" with the wave of a wand and a "poof"- that would be more like creation. IDists do not argue that life was "poofed" into existence in that sense of creation- but that an intelligence played a role in the design of their body plans. Frost122585

StephenB, is there a difference between saying 'this was designed' and saying 'this was created'? fG faded_Glory

----womanatwell: "Though not all ID advocates are believers, there is a real difference in perspective among these advocates between the individuals who believe in God and the ones who don’t. It is that difference that should be acknowledged, not in discord, but in honest recognition that the approach to science must be different for each group." The distinction that needs to be made is the one between ID methdology, which has nothing at all to do with religion, and ID sensibilities or the ID movement, both of which should, and often do, allude to religious theism as a counterpoise to the religion of atheistic Darwinism. As long as the subject matter is ID science, religion is not a factor in any way. There is no way to extract religion from "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity." These are solely scientific concepts that indicate the presence of design. One is certainly justified to make a second order philosophical/theological inference that the designer is God, but that calculus transcends anything that can be measured, which is the subject matter for science. To not make these distinctions is to make the mistake of saying that the science of Intelligent Design, which begins with observations, draws inferences from the bottom up, and follow where the evidence leads, is equivalent to Creation Science or Young Earth Creationism, which begins with a faith commitment, confirms it from the top down, and harmonizes the evidence with its religious presuppositions. The differences are significant, dramatic, and historical. The history of both approaches have been described in the FAQ section, which is recommended reading for all those who visit here. Anyone who knows that history could not possibly conflate the two approaches, except of course, to purposely and dishonesty muddle the debage waters. There is one notable exception to be found in the work of Hugh Ross, a Christian astrophysicist who separates himself from both the ID and CS [YEC] camps. In essence, he works both from the top down and from the bottom up. Whether he is a "creationist" or not can be debated, but there should be no debate about whether ID is creationism [defined as religious presuppositions posing as science]: it isn't. StephenB

Mustella states “We hold no special place in the fossil record.” – Mustela Nivalis. To my assertion that humans are the last major fossil for to appear abruptly in the fossil record,,, Yet Mustela provides no actual evidence that my assertion is false, just his supposedly authoritative opinion, and I can produce much that my assertion is true: This following site has a graph which was made by an evolutionist. The graph can be enlarged by clicking on the image. The graph, though made by an evolutionist with an extreme bias for "shoehorning evidence", shows just how stable each of the hominid species is over the long periods of time they are found in the fossil record, as well as each hominid's "abrupt appearance" in the fossil record. Man is, of course, the last hominid species to "abruptly appear" in the graph. As well the graph shows the only actual transition ever witnessed by anyone, between any of the stable hominid lineages on the graph, is in the imaginations of the evolutionists who draw the connecting lines between the stable hominid lineages on such graphs. I guess drawing connecting lines on such graphs represents hard physical evidence for them. Perhaps they can forgive me for being less than impressed with their imaginary "lines of evidence" for human evolution. Hominid Fossil Graph http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr One hard fact in the fossil record which is not disputed by most materialists is the fact man has the youngest distinct fossil of all fossils to appear in the fossil record on earth. Materialists do not seem to notice their theory of evolution expects and even demands there should be undeniably clear evidence for a genetically, and morphologically, unique species on earth somewhere since man first suddenly appeared on earth. Indeed there should be many such unambiguous examples they could produce to silence their critics. "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516) For the "Genetic Entropy" balance to that fact: The current rate of extinction is from 100 to 10,000 species a year. This is between 100 and 1000 times faster than our best estimate of historical rates. (of note: it is thought that the "impact of man" is accelerating the extinction rate). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990804073106.htm A materialist will try to assert evolution of species is happening all the time, all over the place, with a lot of suggestive evidence which is far from being scientifically conclusive. Once again the hard evidence of extensive and exhaustive experimentation betrays the materialist in his attempts to validate his evolutionary scenario. “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) At one of her many public talks, she [Lynn Margulis] asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box - Page 26 Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997 “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Keith Stewart Thomson - evolutionary biologist All examples of speciation put forth by materialists all turn out to be trivial examples of reproductive isolation: "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html Many times a materialist will parade examples of reproductive isolation between close sub-species ( Horse & Donkey; Various Insects; etc.. etc..) as proof for evolution. Yet, the evidence of population genetics indicates the information for variation was already “programmed” into the parent species’s genetic code, and the sub-species, or what is known as pure breed in animal husbandry, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species. This fact is made especially clear in mans extensive breeding history of domesticated dogs, cattle, and pure bred horses, as well as food crops. In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species have been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species: .. the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdf Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - Dr. Georgia Purdom - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izPzEgRtPKI Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdZYguRuzn0 Darwinism’s Last Stand? - Jonathan Wells Excerpt: Despite the hype from Darwin’s followers, the evidence for his theory is underwhelming, at best. Natural selection - like artificial selection - can produce minor changes within existing species. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_darwinisms_last_stand.html#more EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOWfmuJ-MdY "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- I wonder what Hitler would have thought of that study? This following study is interesting in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed for the estimated 60,000 year old anatomically modern humans found in Australia: Ancient DNA and the origin of modern humans: John H. Relethford Excerpt: Adcock et al. clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years,,, The author of the preceding paper offered a evolutionary "just so story" for how this loss of genetic information occurred. Yet, the result clearly falls within what we would expect from a Genetic Entropy perspective. Mustela, thus from the best evidence we have my claim in post #32 stands untarnished by your atheistic ramblings. bornagain77

almost forgot: Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUqoTsmqbA bornagain77

Mustela, so you have bought, hook line and sinker, that whales and horses, and all other animals, are all settled matters as far as empirical science is concerned? Well I tend to require at least some modicum of evidential respectability before I accept such swill as you seem more than eager to belly up in the mud for: In spite of this crushing evidence found in the Cambrian explosion, and DNA analysis of different phyla, most scientists, and thus a large portion of the public, continues to imagine all life on earth descended from a common ancestor and continues to imagine missing links with every new fossil discovery making mainstream media headlines. Yet the true story of life since the Cambrian explosion, which is actually told by the fossil record itself, tells a very different story than the imaginative tales found in mainstream media accounts. Ancient Fossils That Evolutionists Don't Want You To See - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLzqDLZoufQ THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient "living" fossils that have not changed for millions of years: http://www.fossil-museum.com/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History The Fossil Record - Don Patton - in their own words - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4679386266900194790 "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 " Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. Comparing molecular sequences gives the same pattern of discontinuity as the fossil record does: 'The theory makes a prediction (for amino acid sequence similarity); we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.' Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7 Excerpt: "There is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated." http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a21.htm Flowering Plant Big Bang: “Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species,“To think that the burst that gave rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing - especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years.” Pam Soltis, curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 The flash recovery of ammonoids after the most massive extinction of all time - August 2009: Excerpt: After the End-Permian extinction 252.6 million years ago, ammonoids diversified and recovered 10 to 30 times faster than previous estimates.,,, Furthermore, the duration for estimated recovery after other lesser extinctions all vary between 5 and 15 million years. The result obtained here suggests that these estimates should probably be revised downwards. Psalm 104: 29-30 You hide Your face, they are dismayed; You take away their spirit, they expire And return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground. Partial List Of Fossil Groups - (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 Tiktaalik- Out Of Order Excerpt: One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University Evolution Deception - First Life - Fossil Record - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1V7_TBM44Y "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyUqoTsmqbA "The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series". Dr. Heribert Nilsson - Evolutionist - Former Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute. Psalm 50:10-11 For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine. etc..etc.. You know it really is not my problem if you find the concept of a Creator distasteful Mustela, it is your problem (and I would say you have a pretty huge problem), I find that God would actually be Real, and to be semi-accessible through the scientific method, to be a wonderfully great surprise that gives me endless delight as I reflect upon its implications. Atheists such as yourself are always full of pseudo-intellectual manure in trying to deflect the findings of modern science, even on well established facts of science like the Big Bang as well, why mainstream science even gives atheists the time of day I have no idea, but it is certainly not fruitful and a source of endless distraction from finding truth I might add. bornagain77

----Mustela Nivalis: "Methodological naturalism is not an “artificial imposition.” It has been empirically demonstrated to allow science to make significant progress, in large part by virtue of being self-correcting. Incorrect. Methodological naturalism is a presumed line of demarcation between science and non-science--- a rule which declares that true science must study nature "as if nature is all there is." Prior to the 1980's, no such rule existed. That is simply a fact. ---"The quotes provided by Seversky make it clear that ID is an inherently religious concept, as defined by it’s major proponents." Creationism, as it is now used by ID proponents [given Darwinists proclivity to use multiple definitions to muddy the debate waters] refers to creation science [religious presupposition from the top down] as opposed to Intelligent Design [design inference from the bottom up]. Please read the FAQ as you are lagging behind in your use of the relevant terms. StephenB

Rude at 41, “We hold no special place in the fossil record.” – Mustela Nivalis. "But that’s just trendy, politically correct, fuzzy-wuzzy clap trap." No, it's a simple statement of fact. Bornagain77's assertion at 32 is simply incorrect. If you disagree, please demonstrate how the evolution of humans differs from the evolution of, say, horses. Mustela Nivalis

bornagain77 at 38, 39, 40, and 42, I started to address your posts point-by-point, but I can recognize a Gish Gallop when I see one. It's much easier for someone to spew forth a collection of cherry-picked excerpts from the popular press, bible verses, and YouTube links than it is to explain the well-established physics and biology that is being ignored. Suffice to say that you have completely failed to support your assertion at 32 that: “14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record.” In fact, any objective and honest assessment of the fossil record shows that it supports the genetic evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Further, there are extensive fossils for other lineages such as whales and horses that clearly refute your assertion. All extant species are equally evolved (insofar as that has any meaning). You are, however, correct in one particular. There is no fossil record leading to modern chimpanzees. A scientist might look at that fact and try to come up with a testable hypothesis as to the reason. Do chimpanzees live in climates that reduce the odds of fossilization, for example. Based on your incorrect assertion regarding the human fossil record, though, your logic indicates that chimpanzees are specially created by god and humans are merely evolved animals. That's going to make for some interesting changes in worship services. Mustela Nivalis

bornagain77 at 38, "Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed)." There is no such law. Mustela Nivalis

Though judges and advocacy groups may define "creationist" in various ways, the general definition, as given in Richard Ostling’s article (Dr. Dembski’s second link) , is one ID proponents need to take seriously:

Most Americans are creationists in the sense of belief in God as the Creator taught by Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Catholics, for example, are bound to the Nicene Creed which, concerning Jesus Christ states: Through him all things were made. Therefore, apart from any arguments about science, schools or government, I think believers are on sound footing to say we are creationists. It is in God our foundation lies, not in human law or even modern science, however factual it may be. One needs this solid foundation to deal with today's challenges: scientific materialism becomes unmanageable at this unprecedented time of discovery which points to the beginnings of life; judges concerned with education make "Dred-full" decisions (see Dred Scott for reference). Though not all ID advocates are believers, there is a real difference in perspective among these advocates between the individuals who believe in God and the ones who don’t. It is that difference that should be acknowledged, not in discord, but in honest recognition that the approach to science must be different for each group. That this concept has not been recognized (that I have ever seen) is one problem the Discovery Institute and other ID advocates need to address, because concerning the very beginning of life, believers have no other answer but to say, "God did it." womanatwell

No I liked it. I just dont want to inspire some unnecessary regulation of post lengths. Overall they are good about freedom though here at UD- as far as I can tell at least. Frost122585

Frost, sorry about the length, but the evidence against human evolution is so voluminous it is hard to get it condensed,,, The funny thing is I could have gone much further. bornagain77

Bornagain, Those were two very good posts, but the two longest posts I have seen. Frost122585

cont: Many times materialists will try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to mere suggestive similarities, of one type or another, all the while ignoring profound dissimilarities. For prime example of the flimsy "similarity evidence", used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if true, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this "lack of conclusiveness" is due to concerns with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded in the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JzQ8ingdNY This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show "exceedingly rare" major morphological effects from mutations to the DNA code. Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation: Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable. Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine This includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations. ...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." - Jonathan Wells Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZJTIwRY0bs If that wasn't enough, the Human Genome Project really put the last nail in the coffin for "Genetic Reductionism": DNA: The Alphabet of Life - David Klinghoffer Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell's building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn't there. Instead, "It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it." Higher Levels Of Information In Life - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,, Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding "architectural plan" of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place. Of more clarity though, this "98.8% similarity evidence" is derived by materialists from a very biased methodology of presuming that the 1.5% of the genome, which directly codes for proteins, has complete precedence of consideration over the other remaining 98.5% of the genome which does not directly code for proteins. Yet even when considering just this 1.5% of the genome that codes for proteins, we find that the proteins, which are directly coded by that 1.5% of the genome, are shown to differ by a huge 80% difference between chimps and man. Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: How in the world did the proteins change by +80% while the genes, which supposedly code for those proteins, remained virtually unchanged? Why is this huge +80% anomaly ignored by materialists and only the biased genetic similarity stressed? On top of this huge +80% difference in proteins, the oft quoted 98.8% DNA similarity is not even rigorously true in the first place. Just considering this 1.5% of the genome, other recent comparisons of the protein coding genes, between chimps and man, have yielded a similarity of only 96%. Whereas, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by 6.4%, which gives a similarity of only 93.6% (Hahn). Even more realistically, to how we actually should be looking at the genomes from a investigative starting point, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity is closer to 85% to 90% when taking into account the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the true genome similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased "only 1.5% of the genome" studies of materialists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. More Chimp-Human Genome Problems - Cornelius Hunter Excerpt: Even more interesting, at these locations the chimp's genome is quite similar to other primates--it is the human that differs from the rest, not the chimp. (human accelerated regions (HARs) . On top of that the Junk regions are actually found to be "more functional" than the protein coding regions: Astonishing DNA complexity update Excerpt: The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes. Evolutionists were recently completely surprised by this genetic study of kangaroos: Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," As mentioned previously, the chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is "more evolved" than us, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical "evolutionary" progression to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the DNA found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma: C-value enigma Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical; The following refutes the evolutionists argument for common ancestry from "fused Chromosome 2": Fusion of Chromosome 2 - Sean D. Pitman M.D http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Fusion Refutation Of "Fused" Chromosome 2 Argument For Common Ancestry http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTdjN3huNXBjdg This following paper and video reiterate the biased methodology of establishing 98.8% similarity, between chimps and man, used by materialists: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. Are Humans and Chimps Really 98% Genetically Identical? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GxuIWshYQ As well, there are at least several hundred genes which are completely unique to humans: The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families - Jeffery P. Demuth Excerpt: Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. Moreover, single genes are shown to code for multiple protein products: Human genes are multitaskers: Abstract: Genome-wide surveys of gene expression in 15 different tissues and cell lines have revealed that up to 94% of human genes generate more than one (protein) product. And multiple genes are shown to code for single protein products Multiple genes code for high-molecular-mass rhoptry proteins of Plasmodium yoelii Excerpt: The genes in the family were distributed on 6 chromosomes probably at 9 or more loci. Another point worth reiterating is, at the protein level, 80% of proteins are found to be different in chimps and humans: Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Amazingly, this evidence is just brushed aside as insignificant by materialists since some of the proteins differ by only a few amino acids. Yet, since the "1-Dimensional" genetic code is shown to not even code for body plans in the first place, and proteins are at least 3-Dimensional in their configuration, as the bodies of the chimps and humans being compared are 3 dimensional, then this shows the 80% difference in proteins should at least carry more weight of consideration, over the genetic code, when considering similarities of the 3-Dimensional body plans. Especially now that proteins are shown to have far more "informational impact" on genes than previously thought. Researchers Uncover New Kink In Gene Control: - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: a collaborative effort,, has uncovered more than 300 proteins that appear to control genes, a newly discovered function for all of these proteins previously known to play other roles in cells.,,,The team suspects that many more proteins encoded by the human genome might also be moonlighting to control genes,,, Yet, even though materialists completely ignore the large portion of radically different proteins between chimps and humans, it is now shown that even the proteins which are similar to each other can have widely divergent and specified functions. Human Genes: Alternative Splicing (For Proteins) Far More Common Than Thought: Excerpt: two different forms of the same protein, known as isoforms, can have different, even completely opposite functions. For example, one protein may activate cell death pathways while its close relative promotes cell survival. If materialists were to actually try to account for the origination of the large portion of completely unique genes, and proteins, between chimps and humans, instead of just ignoring them, they would find genes, and specific functional proteins are exceedingly rare to "find": Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." In further evidence, using the very biased and misleading "only protein coding genes count" methodology of materialists, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we therefore 75% worm? No, of course not! This reasoning, that materialists have shoe-horned their meager evidence into, is without proper scientific foundation and is severely contradicted by many other more concrete lines of evidence. This following recent article in "New Scientist" has a totally different conclusion on what comparing genes proves about evolution: "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009) Excerpt: Even among higher organisms, “the problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,”,,,“despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.” ,,,,Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.” In fact ever since Michael Denton's book in 1985, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", it has been popularly known that different genes tell widely different evolutionary "stories". And though you may have been taught otherwise, the "gene tree" problem remains unresolved to this day. Shilling for Darwin — The wildly irresponsible evolutionist - William Dembski - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The incongruence of gene and species trees is a standing obstacle, or research problem, in molecular phylogenetics. This following article shows that the "same exact genes" have actually been shown to produce "completely different" adult structures: A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution This following study reveals that genes can't even be resolved to the hypothetical mammalian tree of life. A article in - Trends in Ecology and Evolution - concluded “the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals of the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce the mammalian tree to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows. W. W. De Jong, “Molecules remodel the mammalian tree,” - Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 13(7), pgs. 270-274 (July 7, 1998). So did the very biased methodology of establishing genetic similarity, between man and chimps, help establish unguided evolution as true for the materialist once more solid evidence came in? No, of course not! From a standpoint of basic scientific evidence, if one were to actually try to prove evolution true, it must be first found if random mutations can do all that evolution requires of them to do before we can infer whether materialistic evolution, of increased functional complexity, is even viable as a hypothesis in the first place. The primary evidence that is crushing to the evolutionary hypothesis is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms which can be measured, it appears at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms which are slightly deleterious, harmful and/or fatal to the life-form having the mutation. (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998, Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998). Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to the DNA of humans which would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a "truly" beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker). "Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. etc...etc...etc.... bornagain77

“We hold no special place in the fossil record.” – Mustela Nivalis. But that’s just trendy, politically correct, fuzzy-wuzzy clap trap. There’s nothing in the theory to predict anything, and so under racist regimes elite Darwinists talk about survival of the fittest and under The Sixties we’re all equal—mosquito, coconut, mold, man. Rude

cont: It is also interesting to point out that materialism has an extremely difficult time assigning proper value to humans in the first place: How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! It seems fair to say the most suggestive piece of evidence, a materialist has for the supposed evolution of humans, is the existence of the Neanderthal fossils themselves. In fact, even though the fossils are fairly distinct and have a fairly stable history throughout the entire time they are found in the fossil record, the Neanderthal fossils are so morphologically similar to humans that many special creationists have lumped them together with humans in their debates with materialists. Moreover, it is only possible to scientifically prove Neanderthals are truly distinct from humans, as a kind/species, by their genetic 'mtDNA' dissimilarity from humans: NEANDERTHAL: NO RELATION By Sean Henahan, Access Excellence Excerpt: "These results indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neanderthals are not our ancestors."----"While the two species may have lived at the same time, Neanderthals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans," Yet this mtDNA evidence, though at first seeming to help the materialist in his debates with the creationist, has actually turned completely against the materialist for the mtDNA turns out to be a second solid line of "stability" evidence, in support of the stable fossil record. The mtDNA evidence actually proves there was no evolution going on in Neanderthals, nor in humans, for as far back in time as we can extract and measure the mtDNA. mtDNA Proves Humans And Neanderthals Did Not Evolve - Hugh Ross - audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcPmJTyn4yw Thus, the materialist is betrayed once again by even his most promising line of evidence for human evolution. I have heard some fairly fanciful theological arguments as to exactly why God would create Neanderthals, none of which I find compelling. About the best reason anyone has given me as to why God would create such a morphologically similar, yet "spiritually" different, species from humans is this: "I guess God just likes variety". Though that answer is almost certainly true in an overall sense, I can't help but feel there is some larger purpose behind God creating Neanderthals. As far as the science goes though, Neanderthals have clearly differentiated the spiritual aspect of "What it means to be human" by their demonstrated lack of advanced information capacity, though being so morphologically similar to us. Another interesting line of genetic evidence, which has recently come to light and which is extremely antagonistic to the materialist, is the Genetic Adam and Genetic Eve evidence. This genetic evidence strongly supports the Biblical view of the sudden creation of man. Human Evolution - Genetic Adam And Eve - Hugh Ross - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cfHsFtw02g I also like this following piece of evidence which unequivocally shows if human evolution did it occur it was a miracle. In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA Another so called missing link in human evolution to make mainstream media headlines, in May 2009, is "Ida" the 47 million year old lemur-type primate. Ida is touted as "The Eighth Wonder Of The World" by a few publicity seeking paleontologists who are involved in examining her. Yet Ida has failed to inspire such frenzied faith from other paleontologists in the field as is noted in this following article: Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor - May 2009 Excerpts: "They claim these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence," paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. - "It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make," Chris Beard curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. ‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all: Excerpt: "In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be" Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York. The same lack of faith among paleontologists can be found for "Ardi" of Oct. 2009: Artificially Reconstructed “Ardi” Overturns Prevailing Evolutionary Hypotheses of Human Evolution - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The missing link presently being touted in the media, Ardipithecus ramidus, has had more reconstructive surgery than Michael Jackson.,,,One problem is that some portions of Ardi's skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction. "Tim [White] showed me pictures of the pelvis in the ground, and it looked like an Irish stew," says Walker. Indeed, looking at the evidence, different paleoanthropologists may have different interpretations of how Ardi moved,,, The propaganda machine goes into overdrive: Excerpt: But Ardi's foot is fairly well preserved... and it is very obviously a flat-footed ape's foot - complete with curved toe bones, best suited for grasping branches:,,, Even some evolutionists, like Jungers, point this out: "Divergent big toes are associated with grasping, and this has one of the most divergent big toes you can imagine." "Why would an animal fully adapted to support its weight on its forelimbs in the trees elect to walk bipedally on the ground?" Ian Juby - Newsletter Sensation of the Month: "Ardi" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNqtp-SymEM This following site has a graph which was made by an evolutionist. The graph can be enlarged by clicking on the image. The graph, though made by an evolutionist with an extreme bias for "shoehorning evidence", shows just how stable each of the hominid species is over the long periods of time they are found in the fossil record, as well as each hominid's "abrupt appearance" in the fossil record. Man is, of course, the last hominid species to "abruptly appear" in the graph. As well the graph shows the only actual transition ever witnessed by anyone, between any of the stable hominid lineages on the graph, is in the imaginations of the evolutionists who draw the connecting lines between the stable hominid lineages on such graphs. I guess drawing connecting lines on such graphs represents hard physical evidence for them. Perhaps they can forgive me for being less than impressed with their imaginary "lines of evidence" for human evolution. Hominid Fossil Graph http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) Fearfully and Wonderfully Made (The Amazing Human Body) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAesaJ2T9C4 If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following "true" statement: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils The hard evidence clearly suggests the abrupt arrival of man in the fossil record. Yet if you were to ask an average person on the street if we have evolved from apes he will tell you of course we have "evolved" and wonder why you would ask such a stupid question, since “everyone knows” this is clearly proven in the fossil record. One hard fact in the fossil record which is not disputed by most materialists is the fact man has the youngest distinct fossil of all fossils to appear in the fossil record on earth. Materialists do not seem to notice their theory of evolution expects and even demands there should be undeniably clear evidence for a genetically, and morphologically, unique species on earth somewhere since man first suddenly appeared on earth. Indeed there should be many such unambiguous examples they could produce to silence their critics. bornagain77

Mustela, so Human evolution is your big ace in the hole? Well I'll see your ace with a royal flush: "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001 “Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws," Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, May 2009. "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on." David Pilbeam, Harvard University paleoanthropologist: from Richard E. Leakey's book, The Making of Mankind, 1982, p. 43. The large variety of hominid (man or ape-like) fossils that we do have piece-meal records of are characterized by overlapping histories of “distinctively different and stable” hominid species. There is never a transition between any of the "stable" hominid kinds no matter where, or in what era, the hominid fossils are found. The following sources show that "Lucy", the supposed superstar of human evolution, was an ape: "these australopith specimens (Lucy) can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes" Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296 "The australopithecines (Lucy) known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage." Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis; Israeli Researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans"; Apr 16, 2007 Mandibular ramus morphology (lower jaw bone) on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. "The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white." Lord Solly Zuckerman - Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism Excerpt: Collard and Aiello’s article also reports that we now have “good evidence” that A. afarensis (including Lucy) “‘knuckle-walked’, as chimps and gorillas do today.” Due to their evolutionary preconception that Lucy was a bipedal precursor to our genus Homo, they call this plain evidence that Lucy knuckled-walked “counterintuitive.” They suggest the possibility that “the locomotor repertoire of A. afarensis included forms of bipedalism, climbing and knuckle-walking.” This is a tenuous proposal, however, as knuckle-walking is obviously very different from bipedal locomotion. Collard and Aiello suggest avoiding the "counterintuitive" evidence that Lucy climbed and knuckle-walked by discarding it as unused “primitive retentions” from her ancestors.---"We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, "When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.” "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". Richard Leakey, world's foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990. “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/pdf/2007_BROMAGE_IADR_1470.pdf Here are some fairly good videos for refuting human evolution: Human Evolution ? - Dr. Marc Surtees - Video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/humanevolution.xml This following quote, by a leading evolutionist in the field, is candid in its admission of the gaps for the evidence of human evolution. A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins: Even though the preceding comment from a leading evolutionist in the field is crushing, to the smooth transition needed for the materialist to make his case for human evolution, you would think a materialist would at least have some sort of evidence he could cling to with Homo erectus and rudolfensis fossils Mayr cited. Yet when we look at the evidence presented by the materialists themselves, for the proposed evolution of Homo erectus, the evidence is anything but straight forward and appears to be, once again, "shoehorned" to fit their preconceived philosophical bias: Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens - 05/27/2009 - Creation Safaris: Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period....”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: "Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be." By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.” This following quote sums up what materialists appear to be doing with this Homo erectus and rudolfensis, "hominid in the middle", evidence: "But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with." The first line of the " Evolution of the Genus Homo" paper illustrates the poverty of the fossil record in establishing human evolution: Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." Though the authors of the preceding paper appear to be thoroughly mystified by the fossil record, they never seem to give up their blind faith in evolution despite the disparity they see first hand in the fossil record. In spite of their philosophical bias, I have to hand it to them for being fairly honest with the evidence though. I especially like how the authors draw out this following "what it means to be human" distinction in their paper: "although Homo neanderthalensis had a large brain, it left no unequivocal evidence of the symbolic consciousness that makes our species unique." -- "Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate." The authors try to find some evolutionary/materialistic reason for the extremely unique "information capacity" of humans, but of course they never find a coherent reason. Indeed why should we ever consider a process, which is incapable of ever generating complex functional information at even the most fundamental levels of molecular biology, to suddenly, magically, have the ability to generate our brain? A brain which has been repeatedly referred to as "the Most Complex Structure in the Universe"? A brain which somehow has within itself the capacity to understand, and generate, large amounts of complex functional information? The authors never seem to consider the "spiritual angle" for why we would have such a unique capacity for such abundant information processing. Genesis 3:8 And they (Adam and Eve) heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day... John 1:1-1 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. Human Evolution? Big Bang of Language, Clothes, Tools and Art - Hugh Ross - audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRNmiO6f_c4 This following study, though of materialistic bent, offers strong support that Humans are extremely unique in this "advanced information" capacity: Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds: Excerpt: There is a profound functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. We argue that this discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture can explain. We hypothesize that the cognitive discontinuity between human and nonhuman animals is largely due to the degree to which human and nonhuman minds are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (i.e. able to understand information). These following studies highlight the difficulty materialists have in fitting mental abilities into an evolutionary scenario: Origin of Soulish Animals: Excerpt: Bolhuis and Wynne contrast the cognitive capacities of birds and primates.,,, They also refer to an experiment demonstrating that "crows can also work out how to use one tool to obtain a second with which they can retrieve food, a skill that monkeys and apes struggle to master." Evidently, certain bird species exhibit greater powers of the mind than do apes. New Caledonian Crows Exceed Apes/Chimps at Trap-tube Experiment - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwFLJBCk5sk Even the lowly honey bee is shown to have a capacity to communicate information to other bees. Thus this comparison of abilities to manipulate rudimentary information is fraught with difficulties for the materialist to make his case for evolution with: The Language Of Bees http://www.laits.utexas.edu/hebrew/personal/language/animals/beess.html Evolution vs. The Honey Bee - an Architectural Marvel - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW7CLGQOpfQ to be cont> bornagain77

Well Mustela, You claim no "physical evidence" exists for God so I will disprove that statement with the same post I posted in response to seversky: Reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its "infinite" information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Thus, this is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, energy, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell). The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "location dominion", of a photon of energy by "a specified truth of infinite information", satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar "specified location" fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows "coordinated universal control" of entangled photons of energy, by transcendent information, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment. Job 9:8 He stretches out the heavens by Himself and walks on the waves of the sea. Thus "infinite transcendent information" provides a coherent picture of universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. This following article powerfully backs up my assertion: Is Unknown Force In Universe Acting On Dark Matter? Excerpt: It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes." ,,Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as 'dark energy', which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. ,,Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm "I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure" Albert Einstein Further reflections on the "infinite transcendent information" framework: Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.). For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum teleportation is concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, "past and future folding into now", framework/dimension of time. This "eternal" inference for light is warranted because light is not "frozen within time" yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." – Richard Swenson Light and Quantum Entanglement Proves That God Does Indeed Exist - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLzpr4EEKn4 Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this "timeless" travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework/dimension of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the "time not passing", eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework/dimension. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks/dimensions, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus "pure information" is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks/dimensions. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which It resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). Logic also dictates "a decision" must have been made, by the "transcendent, eternal, infinite information" from the primary timeless (eternal) reality It inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive. The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal framework/dimension does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite, eternal, transcendent, information framework/dimension that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge. "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy - Artwork homepage - music video As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is "information". Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/5896/Default.aspx Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. bornagain77

bornagain77 at 32, "14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record." This statement indicates that you are profoundly misinformed on the human fossil record in particular and modern evolutionary theory in general. Information about the human fossil record is readily available on the web -- you can start with the links at Wikipedia or here. All other extant species are equally as evolved as humans. We hold no special place in the fossil record. Mustela Nivalis

bornagain77 at 32, "The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins." Methodological naturalism is not an "artificial imposition." It has been empirically demonstrated to allow science to make significant progress, in large part by virtue of being self-correcting. Theological "explanations" lack this quality. If a god or gods were a "rational explanation" then their purported effects would be incorporated into the scientific method. Since no empirical, objective evidence of such entities has thus far been presented, despite thousands of years of theological work, allowing them as explanations of natural phenomena would be anything but rational. Mustela Nivalis

Jehu at 31, "ID is not inherently religious. Strong panspermia is an example of a hypothesis that is nonreligious and yet falls under the umbrella of intellligent design." Panspermia just pushes the question off one planet. If life on Earth came from space, either via something like spores or actual intelligent beings, those spores or beings had to come from somewhere. Either they evolved from non-living matter (impossible according to ID proponents) or they were created by some other intelligence. At some point, ID requires an uncaused, non-material intelligence. The comments quoted by Seversky make it very clear that the founders of the ID movement consider that to be the god of the Abrahamic religions. Mustela Nivalis

I dun mind at all,, hope it helps. bornagain77

Bornagain77, Great stuff. It will really pay dividends for ID. An' if ya dun mind, I think I'll just put that stuff in ma toolbox, thx. Keep jammin'. Oramus

Mustela Nivalis, Save for one thing Mustela Nivalis science is not allowed free reign to define the answer, the scientific method may receive, as a materialistic one in these questions of origins. To make it crystal clear for you: The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. A Question for Barbara Forrest http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/question-for-barbara-forrest.html In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. For a quick overview here are a few: 1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4)- 6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 bornagain77

ID is not inherently religious. Strong panspermia is an example of a hypothesis that is nonreligious and yet falls under the umbrella of intellligent design. Jehu

Joseph at 29, In one sense, all scientific theories are atheistic (literally "without theism") since no god, gods, or other non-natural phenomena are presumed to be involved. That being said, do you have any cites where Dawkins or Provine say that modern evolutionary theory is explicitly atheistic? The quotes provided by Seversky make it clear that ID is an inherently religious concept, as defined by it's major proponents. Mustela Nivalis

Seversky, By your "logic" the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because people like Ruchard Dawkins and Will Provine say it is. Joseph

...what evidence of tampering with genetics by intelligent agents is exhibited by nature?

Cabal, Out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that intelligent agents are tampering with nature? It seems you are having a hard time wrapping your brain around the idea of intelligence being embedded in nature? FYI, God is not a being that stands apart from His creation, busy pulling the levers of life from a distance. Because we are a subset of creation, we must learn to understand what we can about God 'in the way' that He is, not as we hope or require Him to present Himself to us. How can we grow in our intellectual capacity if we are spoonfed the details? We wanna learn about the designer? Let's think like one. The pieces of the puzzle will fall in place, but not until we abandon the skepticism that is the 'veil of unknowing'. Oramus

the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity.

How and when is intelligent activity (tampering with genetics) detected, and what evidence of tampering with genetics by intelligent agents is exhibited by nature? Isn't that just attributing what evolutionary theory says is the result of natural forces to the enigmatic term "intelligent activity"? I see many marvelous things in nature but don't see any reason to assume there's a higher being or supernatural forces behind them. There's a lot of intelligent activity going on inside my body, but where is the agent? Cabal

Oops - hit 'send' thinking JGuy's post 23 was still the latest - apologies. PaulT

Proof the NCSE promotes the teaching HUMANISM!...guilty by association! http://ncse.com/news/2009/09/harun-yahya-exposed-new-humanist-005053 Proof the NCSE endorses consensus science! http://ncse.com/news/2009/10/kilosteve-t-shirts-now-available-005103 Ah ha! Proof the NCSE even endorses science by legislation! http://ncse.com/news/2009/09/judge-jones-honored-by-geological-society-america-005080 JGuy

JGuy @ 22 -

Does Nicky have a blog we can use to evaluate what should be associated with evolution?

The first link in Dr Dembski's opening post is to the blog where you are most likely to find and question Nick Matzke directly. PaulT

I was just reading the comments in Nick Matzke's blog posting at PT. Because of the blatant fallacy in his association, I am really surprised at the level of concurrence in the comments at PT. I'd expect that at least one of their own challenge Nicky to his error. And Nicky's working on his PhD??? 'Good' thing for him that his faithful comrades are equally negligent and apparently don't care if he's wrong. JGuy

Does Nicky have a blog we can use to evaluate what should be associated with evolution? JGuy

Sever, the point is not about what ID ultimately leads to, but the point about "what is the theory of ID?" It is so simple to see that a young earth is not related. Also it is obvious that ID is scientific theory and not a religious doctrine. It is about detecting design in nature. To conflate it with creationism is just a text book example of a red herring attack. Frost122585

Not Young Earth Creationism, perhaps, but still Creationism in a broader sense: Jonathon Wells:

Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism

Phillip Johnson:

"We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

William Dembski

ID is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action.

and

The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

Seversky

osteonectin @6 I think it's a relevent point that an ID supporter such as myself displays superior textual analysis to Darwin, regardless of the text. tragic mishap

Apparently dr Dembski assumes, that fellows as Matzke are interested in honest discussion with the ID camp. I'm afraid, the other side is completely not interested in any discussion, much less honest. What they want is to discredit by any means, so they will use any argument which suits them. Whether an argument is good or bad, true or false - that's completely secondary factor. Cheers, Tohu Tohu Wabohu

Scientific Materialism And The Question Of Origins - Dr. Thomas Kindell - video Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvXF47L447U Part 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCQYZkIG6GM "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet Materialism Compared To Theism- article http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 bornagain77

Another false argument that materialists use is the one which states "that supernatural explanations are not scientific." This supposedly presumes that only "naturalistic" or "natural" explanations are allowed as scientific explanations. While there really is no reason to rule out the super natural at all (I could quote Kant but I am not getting into it) there really is no reason to distinguish between the "super" natural and the just simply "natural" phenomena and explanations. This argument is as bad as saying superconductors cannot exist because they presupposes a "super" nature nature. We all know what they are and why they are deemd such- and this is no different than when we call a naturalistic explanation "supernatural"- in which case we are merely saying we understand the picture of what happened to a point and yet we cannot explanain it to a point. It is not a situation of invoking gaps to fill with Gods, but of arguing for a picture of events, history or reality according to the evidence, and at the same time accessing what we do and can know and what we don't and cannot know. Any explanation so long as it is natural- and so long as the evidence warrants it's possible or probable hypothesis, is science worthy as long as it is supported across the lines of competing hypothesis. That is, so long as an explanation is adequately argued for, and it is rationally natural, regardless of whether it is "super" natural nor not, it is perfectly scientifically rational to consider it. A supernatural explanation is perfectly compatible with sceince so long as it is warranted, based on the evidence and reasoning, and stands up when compared across the lines of competing hypotheses. With that said, there is no room in science as far as I can tel, with explanations that "only" invoke gaps. IN other words for an explanation to be such it must give us positive information about the topic at hand. There is no room for "unantrual" explanations- such as theories which presuppose things which violate all scientifically accepted fundamental laws just for the purpose of the theory. But on that note it is often overlooked how liberal the "laws" of physics actually are. There are not laws preventing the possibility of things like spontaneous combustion for example. While these things are "possible" one would still need to deal with their great "improbability" before invoking them as science worthy hypotheses or theories. SO the bottom line is that to say ID is not science because someone might view it as involving "supernatural" causes- is a totally invalid objection. Frost122585

Also if it works one way it works against them- IOW the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory- because of Richard Dawkins et al. And as such violates the separation laws. Joseph

Darwin started the strawman attacks when he argued that species are not fixed. Linneaus, who was a Creationist searching for the Created Kind, already noted that the observed "species" were NOT the Created Kind but had "evolved" from them. Thay said what Matzke and his ilk do not realize is that if we apply their standards to the theory of evolution it is a Creationist theory:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin "On the Origins of Species" 6th edition, last chapter, last paragraph and last sentence (bold added)

Mewonders if Matzke would have any issues with biology teachers reading that to every biology class. Also it is Matzke and his ilk who can least afford to have ID presented fairly in public schools- even if it is in something other than a science classroom- If ID is presented fairly all their lies will be exposed- but thta doesn't mean they will stop trying to "sell" them. But the sad part about people like Matzke is that if they just stand up and support their claims ID would go away. It is their failure to support their claims, along with our observations and experience that leads people to the design inference. Anthony Flew fought that inference his entire life until the evidence just became too much to ignore. Joseph

Ultimately it is the bigotry against religion, and people of faith, sadly, that drives the popular conflations of ID with YEC. Those opponents of ID, for the most part, do not even take the time to thoroughly educate themselves on what the theory is defined to be, by it's theorists and advocates. Their inability to detect the CLEAR difference between ID and creationism proves this right off the bat. And this in general proves that the opponents of ID are primarily driven by an agenda which simply seeks to undermine the progress of ID and YEC, as opposed to trying to expose them as incorrect, which of course requires an intellectual commitment to proper philosophical demarcation, reasoning, honesty, and the facts. Basically they shew that they are not interested in perusing truth. When they do this however it exposes them for what they are, which is a politically motivated movement. Interesting how their criticisms of ID are actually projections of their own inadequacies. As soon as opponents of ID start the YEC conflations they have already dismissed the authority of their own objections- proving that they are either uninformed (ie ignorant) or disinterested in the truth (ie agenda driven to be intellectually corrupt). It is, as simple as that. Frost122585

Guilt by association... hmmmm. Darwin, Nazis. Darwin, Columbine. Seems like there is a lot of that going around. Anthony09

Here's a little ironic pot, kettle; John Wheeler bascially proposed that the universe is intelligently design by human consciousness - see this article http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= and here, where his delayed-choice experiment was conducted: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/216/4 ... via quantum retro-collapes, or "delayed choice". So, isn't John Wheeler an IDist and, by the inane definition most ID denialists use, a creationist? I guess that because Wheeler didn't actually use the term "intelligent design", that makes his theory of the intelligent design of the universe "scientific" enough to warrant respectable treatment in mainstream science publications. William J. Murray

uoflcard #7: I have debated many ID denialists (that's what I call them now, since their argument is never based on evidence or logic). Whenever I point out the basic premises of ID theory, they call me a liar and ridicule me for not knowing anything about ID. They always do the same thing: cherry-pick quotes to "prove" that ID proponents believe that ID refers to a god, refer to the Dover decision, then proceed to use motive-mongering, character slander, and simple denials. The reiterate over and over that IDists conduct no science; when I refer them to the research, they simply deny it. If they cherry-pick a quote, I provide a full context that contradicts their characteriztion, they insist that the proponent in question was lying when they produced the quotes I refer to. When I point out that this impeaches their own witness, they go back to ridiculing me. And they do all this while completely admitting - and even being proud of the fact - that they have read absolutely no significant ID materials other than what is available on anti-ID sites. It astounds me that people will adamantly argue against something, ridiculing it and smearing the character and reputations of others, without even bothering to give a significant reading to the material they vilify ... and then insist that their position is the more logical and supportable, and that I - who have actually read the material - don't know waht I'm talking about. William J. Murray

Well, at least he isn't trotting out that tired old "cdesign proponentsists" nonsense again. hummus man

Dembski:

ID, per definitionem, is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity. How anyone gets young-earth creationism from this is a mystery.

From my observation, it is due to one of three options, on a case-by-case basis: 1. They have never heard or honestly considered the two axioms you just laid out. 2. They do not understand the two axioms. 3. They just use the "c word" to discredit ID without the need for silly things like evidence or logic. They themselves know it is not creationism. But the smart, open-minded segment of audience reading the "neutral" wikipedia page on ID (a.k.a. "neo-creationism") doesn't know. The word "creationism" immediately envokes images of a hell-fire-spittin' pastor hollerin' about the exact literal interpretation of Genesis. uoflcard

AussieID - The problem is that they have a lot more resources, and those resources are automatically given more clout. Just think of the number of people who link to Talk.Origins as definitive on any subject. Making a project out of systematically countering such claims has extremely limited usefulness, which might be better spent doing other things. johnnyb

Sorry, but I mistakenly posted this on PAV's thread (I would appreciate if someone could delete it there): I am aware of the fact that ID tries to distance itself from creationism. However, comments like the one below by tragic mishap on the “Darwin was really wrong” thread may harm the case of ID: 5 tragic mishap 10/30/2009 6:39 pm hdx, off topic, but it according to the Genesis account, Adam lived 930 years and had many sons and daughters. There are no dates, even relative dates, associated with the Cain and Able story, so we have no idea when they were born during Adam’s lifetime, how old they were when Cain killed Able, or how long Cain lived apart from his father’s family before he began building the city. When people live that long, a large population could develop quite quickly in terms of generations. osteonectin

Jehu, I wish you would waste more time with him! It just goes to (continually) prove that points, made ever-so-forcefully, can still be wrong, and this tactic employed by the anti-ID crowd should be noted and noted well. AussieID

Matzke will certainly use any underhanded dishonest tactic available, no matter how transparently stupid, to win a debate. I remind the readers of this Nick Matzke classic from a debate I had with him a couple of years ago.

Jehu: We are supposed to believe that in fewer reproductive events than malaria has in one year, mammals evolved from small shrew like animals into humans, bats and whales? So mammals can create mammary glands, fur, wings, flippers, human intelligence, echolocation, and placentas in fewer reproductive events than Malaria has in one year, yet after 100,000 years Malaria cannot adapt to cold weather? Interesting. Matzke: Um — is someone going to point out that the malaria parasite lives in adult mosquitos, but that in cold regions all the mosquitos (and all other flying insects) die when the temperature hits freezing, and that this provides a perfectly obvious explanation for the distribution of malaria which Behe and all his fans somehow, incredibly, shockingly, astoundingly missed?

How stupid is Matzke's argument? Hmmm, let me count the ways. 1. P. falciparum, the parasite that causes Malaria, cannot reproduce below 60ºF. 2. Water freezes at 32ºF. 3. The mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus that carry the Malaria parasite have a habitat that extends into cold climates, including freezing climates and is vastly larger than the warm areas where the Malaria parasite is found. 4. The reason for the distribution of malaria in warm climates is because they can't reproduce below 60ºF, not because mosquitoes freeze. 5. Many flying insects, including mosquitoes, do in fact survive in sub-freezing temperatures. 6. Not a single fact that Matzke spews out seems to be accurate in this particular quote. 7. Matzke fails to even connect his false facts into a logical coherent argument. 8. In spite of his embarrassing ignorance, Matzke's sarcasm and arrogance are uninhibited as he ridicules "Behe's fans" for missing his "perfectly obvious explanation" which is in fact an uninformed brain fart. I have never met anybody that could pack more wrongness, stupidity, and arrogance in a single paragraph than Nick Matzke. The above exchange is why I no long waste anymore time with him. Jehu

I wonder, did Matzke ever publicly disavow his narrative of the evolution of the Bacterial flagellum after it was completely crushed by Genetic Entropy findings? I know it is probably a pointless question to ask seeing as how he is so willingly deceptive in how he purposely conflates ID with YEC without ever really addressing the merits of the empirical evidence that is clearly, and uncontentiously, present for ID.

Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum “the most efficient machine in the universe."

Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNi0YXYadg0 The flagellum has steadfastly resisted all attempts to elucidate its plausible origination by Darwinian processes, much less has anyone ever actually evolved a flagellum from scratch in the laboratory;

Genetic Entropy Refutation of Nick Matzke's TTSS (type III secretion system) to Flagellum Evolutionary Narrative: Excerpt: Comparative genomic analysis show that flagellar genes have been differentially lost in endosymbiotic bacteria of insects. Only proteins involved in protein export within the flagella assembly pathway (type III secretion system and the basal-body) have been kept... http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/msn153v1

Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Bacterial Flagella - A Paradigm for Design - Scott Minnich - video http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/92

Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III - Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system.

STILL SPINNING JUST FINE: A RESPONSE TO KEN MILLER - William Dembski Excerpt: "Darwin's theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

Flagellum - Sean D. Pitman, M.D. http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html bornagain77

Apparently Matzke didn't get the memo from his boss: “Most ID proponents do not embrace a Young Earth, Flood Geology, and sudden creation tenets associated with YEC.” - Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Greenwood Press, 2004) p. 128. kibitzer

But Bill! Edwards v. Aguillard! Conspiracy! tragic mishap