Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

For a fascinating misreading of what the recently announced Messel Pit fossil really shows, go here:

Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.

That fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture.

The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.

Often, I hear from people attempting to patch the cracks in the unguided Darwinian evolution theory, as follows: “We have more information than ever!”

Yes, but what if it is – as in this case – the evidence is contradictory?

Evidence for Theory A subtracts from evidence for Theory B. So if A is right, B must be subtracted from the total. If B is right, A must be subtracted from the total.

Surely, that is pretty obvious. But watching the spin machine in high gear is a fascinating exercise anyway.

No wonder fewer and fewer believe Darwinism.

Comments

PaV writes:
[184] Alan Fox;
I see. So are you saying that the predictions Diffaxial listed are also predicted by Intelligent Design theory?
ID provides a basis for inferring design. Using the method of Wm Dembski, we can conclude that the genome was designed. The genome fulfils the criteria of the ‘design inference.’
Pardon me if I remark that just seems as if someone asked for an example of an unsupported assertion!
Now, let’s point out that when we talk of ‘design’, we’re not talking about some kind of archetectural software that “designs” a building.
Well, that narrows the concept of "design" a little. Do you actually have a definiftion of what "design" is?
We can more or less ‘predict’ what such a program will ‘design’ given the input. When we talk of a designer, however, we’re dealing with agency: that is, free will. So, Alan, can you predict for me what your wife will do this afternoon?
If I don't prepare the vegetable plot ready for some tomato seedlings that she has gone to get from the market, I have a pretty good idea!
That we’re dealing with a designer—hence, free agency—doesn’t diminish ID as a science; it simply limits what can be predicted. Nevertheless, let’s look at predictions. (ID has nothing to be ashamed of here; in fact, just the opposite) Assuming that the Designer is like us (revelation tells us it’s the opposite)—a free agent guided by reason—we can make certain predictions of design because we know about designing.
What do you mean by "desgn"? What do you know about "designing"? Does a beaver design a dam, for instance? Is a design for a dam in the genome of beavers. What do you think the sequence might look like? A damunculus?
Two predictions then: (1) Junk-DNA is not junk. Why? Because no “designer” is going to waste 97% of DNA for a measly 3% of functioning DNA. What does Darwinian theory predict? Lots of junk DNA. Why? Because of the random processes involved. And what are we discovering: that more and more and more of junk-DNA not only has function, it has vital functions to play.
I predicted junk DNA would turn out to have functions. I wrote it in my diary. I can send you a photocopy as evidence.
(2) Front-loading. ID predicts that the genome would likely be “front-loaded”. Why? Because “designers” use the same basic materials and methods of construction to build all kinds of different buildings of varying sizes, shapes, and appearances. What have we discovered? That the gene for ‘digits’ in the hand and foot are found in ancient Amphioxus, hundreds of millions of years before land animals needed such a gene. Darwinists are ’surprised’. Why? Because according to their theory nothing should exist that doesn’t confer some advantage, and what possible reason would there be for having the means of forming ‘digits’ when you body plan is no more than a ’stalk’ planted on sea bottom.
RM and NS predicts that organisms vary, and are differentially selected by their immediate environment. In this sense, "information" is "front-loaded". The genetic variation is sorted after entering the gene pool. Life is one long experiment on viability.ID needs to make novel, testable predictions to get a pass as science.
Two predictions: Score: ID-2; Darwinism-0. But, of course, we ALL just KNOW that Darwinism is correct.
Assuming for the sake of argument, you have just demolished evolutionary theory, you have not advanced the cause of ID as science. You need at least a positive theory of ID that makes novel, testable predictions.
Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
That's OK.
But how could so many scientist be wrong, you ask? Actually, this is a very good question. Is the answer ‘groupthink’? Oops, I’m sorry, it’s called ’scientific consensus’. My bad.
There is also the issue of evidence. As Einstein remarked on being told that 100 German scientists had signed a petition rejecting his theory, "If I am wrong, one would be enough!" Or paraphrasing Gandhi " Evidence for Intelligent Design would be a very good thing"!Alan Fox_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

StephenB writes:
Can you point to a single instance in which a strong argument for neo-Darwinism was cut off by UD moderation policy? Indeed, can you point me to an example of anyone ever providing a plausible argument for neo-Darwinism on this site? People don’t get banned here for arguing, they bet banned for refusing to argue.
There is much evidence and argument for darwinian evolution posted elsewhere on the web. I don't see any working biologists posting here giving explanations and citing evidence of natural selection, random mutation and common descent with modification. Prima facie evidence for moderators curtailing the ablest proponents of current evolutionary theory? Elizabeth Liddle? Bob O'Hara? Allen MacNeill?Alan Fox_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Thanks for sharing your experience in Iraq, Joe. I must have misread your comment of a while ago about studying marine biology.Alan Fox_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Tom Peeler asks:
1. Account for information with, or by means of, material causes, physics, whatever, apart from mind, OR 2. Tell me why this is not worth doing. Why I am deluded for thinking this is an important issue.
There is something we need to do first. We need a definition of "information". Joe says "Shannon information" is no good. We don't have a definition of "complex specified information", "functionally specified information" or "active information". Is information quantifiable? Saying it cannot be created ("Law" of conservation of information?) implies that it is. What is the unit of information? There are a few other terms that could do with definitions. Intelligence is a word used here with gay abandon. A definition that carries any information is harder to come by. So, tell me what you mean by "information" and I'll try and answer your question.
Only because I believe the inability of darwinians everywhere to answer this question (#1) destroys the neo-darwinian theory.
If you think your argument destroys darwinian theory, perhaps you should advance it in a forum where more darwinians are able to take note and respond.Alan Fox_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

[196] ROb: Sorry for butting in here; however, I think some clarification is needed. If Shannon has a 'theory' of information, then that theory must be communicated via the rules of language, does it not? And all the various mathematical treatments of sound and light using a time function is simply a way of using the rules of mathematics to simulate information. Telegraphy uses the rules of telegraphy in order to communicate, again, with the backdrop of the rules of language. If we train a chimpanzee to 'communicate' with us using images on a screen, we have simply 'imposed' a rule on the chimpanzee, to which the chimp can respond. But it's 'our' rule. Yes, information may be transferred, but it is always according to some set of rules. AND, the rules must be understood by both sides for information to be transferred. We humans can 'communicate' with animals using 'rules of communication'. But they are our rules. Animals in nature can communicate. But they are "nature's" rules. If only one side of the mathematical equations that describe the transfer of information are understood, then no information can be transferred. How, then, did these rules arise in nature? The only known rules of information transfer are those of language. Where did the rules of language (not just the genetic code, but communication between animals themselves) found in nature arise. In our experience, the only 'rule-givers' are intelligent agents. So what is your explanation?PaV_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Upright & Peeler--you guys are on fire. Keep wiping the floor with them. You're making the site entertaining again.allanius_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Hi tgpeeler, Premise 1: No information can be originated without the systematic, i.e. rules based, use of symbols. That is what I call “language.” This applies to all human languages and all animal languages as well. We typically think of symbols as letters but they can also be sounds, pictures, movements or gestures, clicks, scents, and so on. I'm not sure this premise is valid. Consider the genetic code. At its simplest, the code is a physical association between DNA codons, tRNA anticodons, and the amino acids associated with each tRNA. There is growing experimental evidence that this association could have come about purely due to the stereochemical affinities of these entities. The "rules-based use of symbols" in this case would be the stereochemical affinities between the entities, with the entities themselves being the symbols. The only reason we call this a "code" or a "language" is because we recognize an association between the entities. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that the association itself is a language. That would be akin to confusing a metaphor with the actual object of interest.Dave Wisker_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

And what Upright said, too. :-)tgpeeler_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

R0b, Shannon information is useless because it does not care about content. IOW a string of 1 million random characters would have more (Shannon) information than an instruction manual with 999,999 chracters. And that is just plain crazyJoseph_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
So are you saying that the predictions Diffaxial listed are also predicted by Intelligent Design theory?
They are not predictions borne from any theory.
Joe, as you are in a mood to respond to questions, people are still wondering about your encounter with a RPG in Iraq and whether you served there in a military capacity.
I answered the military part in the thread I posted about Iraq and the RPG. I was in Iraq (Saudi, Egypt, Colombia, Mexico, etc.) as a technical advisor to the US military in Iraq. I traveled in an unarmored SUV from Baghdad International down RPG/ IED Ally to Camp Victory. From there we headed North to Balad. Our positions came under attack three times in six days. What was I doing there? One of my areas of expertise is explosives and IEDs (improvised explsive devices)- and there are plenty of those over there- so I was trying to help our guys stay alive and in one piece. But that meant going out with them on their patrols and showing them how to do it. As for RPGs- they are not meant for shooting one person. So when you see a guy lining you up all you have to do is move - you can see it coming- but you have to be sure that nothing behind you is going to get hit and rain stuff down on you. And the explosion will help you move a little faster- like a big push from a big tailwind. I am pretty sure I out-jumped Carl Lewis- but now I have a very messed up knee.
Also, about the career in marine biology…
I never had one.Joseph_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Rob, what do you not get about what I am claiming? Did you even consider, for a second, what I am asking? Let me spell it out for you one last time. For one thing, you are ignoring, not addressing, the argument I made. I am not talking about the TRANSMISSION of information (which is what Shannon was all about) I am talking about the ORIGINATION of information. So, that said, let me be painfully clear about my premises and then my conclusion and then you can have a shot at what I am actually talking about. Premise 1: No information can be originated without the systematic, i.e. rules based, use of symbols. That is what I call "language." This applies to all human languages and all animal languages as well. We typically think of symbols as letters but they can also be sounds, pictures, movements or gestures, clicks, scents, and so on. Discussion of premise (trying to save you some time here): This is intuitively and necessarily true. No symbols, no language, no information. How is it possible to communicate anything to anyone without using some sort of symbology? If you want to confuse the transmission of information with the creation of information I suppose you are welcome to do that. But don't kid yourself, information is not generated without two things, mind and language. In fact, that is premise 2. Premise 2: Only mind can account for symbols, and the rules that govern the use of those symbols, to create information. Discussion of premise. Physics cannot do this. No way, no how. Physics is about rules in the classical world (gravity, say) and probabilities in the quantum world (decay of nuclei, say). Neither can explain why "cat" means a certain kind of mammal and "act" means to do something, something done, or a segment of a play, depending on the context. Only a mind (or a living thing in the case of animals) can take a string of symbols (a symbol is one thing that represents another thing) and string them together according to a set of rules to create information. ONLY A MIND CAN DO THIS. And if you say, "well a honey bee doesn't have a mind" I'd say then it is all the more amazing that a honey bee knows how to "dance" to tell his honey bee friends "hey, the pollen is over here." That means that somehow, that "honey bee dance" language is programmed into its DNA. There's something the evolutionary biologists can do with all the time they'll now have on their hands - figure out the honey bee dance. Now that everyone with a functioning brain knows that not only is evolution not true, it can't even possibly be true. Premise 3: The distinguishing characteristic of life is information. Nobody disputes this. Premise 4: It is absolutely essential that any purported explanation for the existence of life MUST be able to account for the massive amounts of biological information that exists in the genomes of every living thing. Discussion of premise: It seems reasonable to me to demand of an explanation that it actually explain what needs to be explained. So if information is the distinguishing characteristic of life, then any theory of life should damn well better explain information. Pardon my French. Conclusion: Since only mind can explain information, Darwin and his acolytes have always been, and will always be, FOS. :-) The darwinian, or neo-darwinian account of life is one that explicitly rejects Mind/mind. Therefore, it can't possibly explain life. Therefore it can't possibly be true. Another way to say this is that information ALWAYS reduces to, or is explained by, MIND. It is never explained by matter. If you are looking for causes then you will always find MIND as the ultimate cause for information. This quest to understand causes seems to me to be a very scientific endeavor. Indeed, it IS the scientific endeavor. So when we see language and information, the ID person goes, AHA, there must be MIND at the bottom of this because we KNOW that mind is ALWAYS at the bottom of information. It's really simple. It's not that hard. As I said earlier, even children can do it so I assume that evolutionary biologists can eventually develop that skill, too. Now, if you will be so good as to identify the holes in my argument and thus set me on the path to truth, I will be forever grateful. No really, I will.tgpeeler_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

By the way R0b...(this was in the Abel paper you objected to, as well has has been noted by theorists and mathematicians for and repeated for years on end)
"Linear complexity" has received extensive study in many areas relating to Shannon's syntactic transmission theory [1-3]. This theory pertains only to engineering. Linear complexity was further investigated by Kolmogorov, Solomonoff, and Chaitin [4-8]. Compressibility became the measure of linear complexity in this school of thought. Hamming pursued Shannon's goal of noise-pollution reduction in the engineering communication channel through redundancy coding [9]. Little progress has been made, however, in measuring and explaining intuitive information. This is especially true regarding the derivation through natural process of semantic instruction. The purely syntactic approaches to sequence complexity of Shannon, Kolmogorov, and Hamming have little or no relevance to "meaning." Shannon acknowledged this in the 3rd paragraph of his first famous paper right from the beginning of his research [2]. The inadequacy of more recent attempts to define and measure functional complexity [10-45] will be addressed in a separate manuscript.
Shall we rehash it again?Upright BiPed_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

R0b, surely you can distinguish between language, transmission, and method?Upright BiPed_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

R0b, At the risk of repeating the phrase of the day - you cant be serious. Think before you type. Perhaps it would have been useful to you if you hadn't left off the heading and the opening sentence that initiated the paragraph you posted.
"By a communication system we will mean a system of the type indicated schematically in Fig. 1. It consists of essentially five parts: 1. An information source which produces a message or sequence of messages to be communicated to the receiving terminal."
Your post is a technical description of a communications system. What is it do you think is being communicated? The remainder of the description is as follows:
2. A transmitter which operates on the message in some way to produce a signal suitable for transmission over the channel. In telephony this operation consists merely of changing sound pressure into a proportional electrical current. In telegraphy we have an encoding operation which produces a sequence of dots, dashes and spaces on the channel corresponding to the message. In a multiplex PCM system the different speech functions must be sampled, compressed, quantized and encoded, and finally interleaved properly to construct the signal. Vocoder systems, television and frequency modulation are other examples of complex operations applied to the message to obtain the signal. 3. The channel is merely the medium used to transmit the signal from transmitter to receiver. It may be a pair of wires, a coaxial cable, a band of radio frequencies, a beam of light, etc. 4. The receiver ordinarily performs the inverse operation of that done by the transmitter, reconstructing the message from the signal. 5. The destination is the person (or thing) for whom the message is intended.
Come on...Upright BiPed_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler:
ARE YOU SERIOUS??
Certainly. Classical information theory is about probabilities, not necessarily language. From the seminal paper on the subject:
The message may be of various types: (a) A sequence of letters as in a telegraph of teletype system; (b) A single function of time f (t) as in radio or telephony; ( c) A function of time and other variables as in black and white television — here the message may be thought of as a function f (x;y; t) of two space coordinates and time, the light intensity at point (x;y) and time t on a pickup tube plate; (d) Two or more functions of time, say f (t), g(t), h(t)—this is the case in “three-dimensional” sound transmission or if the system is intended to service several individual channels in multiplex; (e) Several functions of several variables—in color television themessage consists of three functions f (x;y; t), g(x;y; t), h(x;y; t) defined in a three-dimensional continuum—we may also think of these three functions as components of a vector field defined in the region — similarly, several black and white television sources would produce “messages” consisting of a number of functions of three variables; (f) Various combinations also occur, for example in television with an associated audio channel.
Do all of Shannon's examples necessarily entail language? As a trivial example, if there is a 50% chance of rain today, and I look out the window and see that it's raining, my uncertainty is decreased by 1 bit. Where is the language in this message?
Only because I’m interested in understanding why someone would even question that claim once they’ve thought about it for a second or two. Hmmmmm. Maybe that’s the problem.
Or maybe a second or two isn't enough at the Pierian spring.R0b_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

[184] Alan Fox;
I see. So are you saying that the predictions Diffaxial listed are also predicted by Intelligent Design theory?
ID provides a basis for inferring design. Using the method of Wm Dembski, we can conclude that the genome was designed. The genome fulfils the criteria of the 'design inference.' Now, let's point out that when we talk of 'design', we're not talking about some kind of archetectural software that "designs" a building. We can more or less 'predict' what such a program will 'design' given the input. When we talk of a designer, however, we're dealing with agency: that is, free will. So, Alan, can you predict for me what your wife will do this afternoon? That we're dealing with a designer---hence, free agency---doesn't diminish ID as a science; it simply limits what can be predicted. Nevertheless, let's look at predictions. (ID has nothing to be ashamed of here; in fact, just the opposite) Assuming that the Designer is like us (revelation tells us it's the opposite)---a free agent guided by reason---we can make certain predictions of design because we know about designing. Two predictions then: (1) Junk-DNA is not junk. Why? Because no "designer" is going to waste 97% of DNA for a measly 3% of functioning DNA. What does Darwinian theory predict? Lots of junk DNA. Why? Because of the random processes involved. And what are we discovering: that more and more and more of junk-DNA not only has function, it has vital functions to play. (2) Front-loading. ID predicts that the genome would likely be "front-loaded". Why? Because "designers" use the same basic materials and methods of construction to build all kinds of different buildings of varying sizes, shapes, and appearances. What have we discovered? That the gene for 'digits' in the hand and foot are found in ancient Amphioxus, hundreds of millions of years before land animals needed such a gene. Darwinists are 'surprised'. Why? Because according to their theory nothing should exist that doesn't confer some advantage, and what possible reason would there be for having the means of forming 'digits' when you body plan is no more than a 'stalk' planted on sea bottom. Two predictions: Score: ID-2; Darwinism-0. But, of course, we ALL just KNOW that Darwinism is correct. Sorry, I just don't buy it. But how could so many scientist be wrong, you ask? Actually, this is a very good question. Is the answer 'groupthink'? Oops, I'm sorry, it's called 'scientific consensus'. My bad.PaV_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

and 193. I guess it's a slow Friday in many places! :-)tgpeeler_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

189/191 Aw shucks. But thanks. Really.tgpeeler_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Peeler, Thank you for the compliment at 162. Please allow me to return it at your 186-7. cheers...Upright BiPed_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Ditto to what StephenB says in 189.PaV_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

OK I found Diffaxial’s nonsense. You can read it here:
Wow. How silly is it to suggest that rm + ns predicts that humans should have lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C? What utter flapdoodle.herb_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

tgpeeler, I like your attitude. You are a man after my own heart.StephenB_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

----Alan Fox: "It is unfortunately true that of the ID critics that make the choice to attempt to post here (itself a small percentage of all mainstream scientists) the ablest tend to be eliminated by the interesting moderation criteria applied here." Can you point to a single instance in which a strong argument for neo-Darwinism was cut off by UD moderation policy? Indeed, can you point me to an example of anyone ever providing a plausible argument for neo-Darwinism on this site? People don't get banned here for arguing, they bet banned for refusing to argue.StephenB_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

"I see. So are you saying that the predictions Diffaxial listed are also predicted by Intelligent Design theory? Would this thread be the place to take each example in turn and discuss in more detail?" How hard must this be? Can we detect design? Yes. We do it every day. Even children can do it and they do it effortlessly. Hint, anything that involves information involves language, and anything that involves language involves symbols and rules, and anything that involves symbols and rules involves mind, and anything that involves mind involves design. Done. The genetic language, which builds all living structures based on the information contained in the genomes, therefore, indicates mind. It's not that hard. If you disagree, then defeat my argument. Go back and refute a premise or tell me where my reasoning breaks down. If you can do that, I'll change my mind. If you can't, then either change yours or acknowledge your slavish devotion to dogma apart from reason. p.s. You guys need to get Richard Dawkins to quit writing books. What he says betrays the insanity of what you purport to believe. Here's a little tidbit from his book "River Out of Eden" regarding purpose, which indicates intelligence, which indicates design. "The illusion of purpose is so powerful that biologists themselves use the assumption of good design as a working tool." How funny is that? THE ILLUSION OF PURPOSE is so powerful that EVEN biologists, those hard-headed, fact driven, robotic and mechanical reasoning machines, EVEN they are taken in and ASSUME design. Wow. Now I know what real reasoning looks like. Let me see if I'm getting this right. First of all, we deny the existence of design/purpose/intelligence/God as a matter of fact (in other words we start with a conclusion rather than premises that lead to a conclusion). Then we observe design/purpose/intelligence all over the place and wonder how do we account for that? Hmmmm. Oh, I know, since we've denied the existence of those things, it must only be THE APPEARANCE of those things. So we'll use the appearance of design/purpose/intelligence to explain the world we see and also use it as "PROOF" that design/purpose/intelligence don't really exist. Or at least, if they do, they are not detectable. TFF (Too ... Funny) That's a technical Marine Corps term that can also be translated as what bull$hit. Here's another one from "The Blind Watchmaker." "We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much. The question is, how much?" Hee hee. If this doesn't take the cake I don't know what does. And YOU GUYS are the rational ones?? If you insist...tgpeeler_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

"Unless either of you want to participate in debate elsewhere, I guess you will have to put up with it." Where would that be? I'll play. Wherever "that" is, I'm guessing they can't account for information with material causes either. This is so boring sometimes. Or since we're both here, we could play now. I would like for someone to either: 1. Account for information with, or by means of, material causes, physics, whatever, apart from mind, OR 2. Tell me why this is not worth doing. Why I am deluded for thinking this is an important issue. Only because I believe the inability of darwinians everywhere to answer this question (#1) destroys the neo-darwinian theory.tgpeeler_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Only a couple of the anti ID people that come here understand anything about evolution let alone what the debate is about. Allen MacNeill is the exception. So what they post is usually nonsense and from some third party or source. Don’t expect intelligence discussions with them.
It is unfortunately true that of the ID critics that make the choice to attempt to post here (itself a small percentage of all mainstream scientists) the ablest tend to be eliminated by the interesting moderation criteria applied here. You are thus left with us harmless and toothless critics that cannot fail to even make you and Joe look good. Unless either of you want to participate in debate elsewhere, I guess you will have to put up with it.Alan Fox_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Not one is a prediction of evolution and not one is based on natural selection nor random variation.
I see. So are you saying that the predictions Diffaxial listed are also predicted by Intelligent Design theory? Would this thread be the place to take each example in turn and discuss in more detail?Alan Fox_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Joseph, Only a couple of the anti ID people that come here understand anything about evolution let alone what the debate is about. Allen MacNeill is the exception. So what they post is usually nonsense and from some third party or source. Don't expect intelligence discussions with them.jerry_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Joe, as you are in a mood to respond to questions, people are still wondering about your encounter with a RPG in Iraq and whether you served there in a military capacity. Also, about the career in marine biology...Alan Fox_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

OK I found Diffaxial's nonsense. You can read it here:
- convergent phylogenetic hierarchies (eg. paleontological and genetic) - chronological fossil series - geographic distributions of features - transitional forms - eg. Tiktallik, the cynodont therapsids, hominid evolution, legged fossil whales, etc.) - inactivated human genes for the production of vitamin C - flightless birds species necessarily unique to the islands upon which they are found. - incipient/recent speciation in allopatrically separated populations
Not one is a prediction of evolution and not one is based on natural selection nor random variation.Joseph_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply