Intelligent Design

Keith’s “Bomb” Defused & Debunked

Spread the love

Even though keiths “bomb” has been defused and debunked in several ways, it has occurred to me that there is another major flaw in keiths argument. However, to reiterate the main debunking point: Barry Arrington asked for a “science bomb” that would demonstrate him wrong about what ID argues; keith’s “bomb” assumes the very thing that ID challenges – that natural forces are capable of producing the CSI found in living organisms. This makes keiths argument logical in nature (given he assumes everything that requires actual science), not scientific, and renders it irrelevant to the challenge – irrelevant even if it was logically valid, which it is not, as I will now show.

First, let’s assume that genetically, living organisms do fall into a nested hierarchy.

Keiths claims that a nested hierarchy leading back to a UCA is what we’d expect to find if natural forces were responsible for life and evolution – yet, he doesn’t explain this expectation – why natural forces could not be expected to produce something other than what we would find to be a nested hierarchy.

If the manufacture of living organisms occurred once in the very early history of earth, why not more than once? Why couldn’t there be multiple ancestral lines leading back to many origin of life points and multiple, entirely separate lines of descent? Why shouldn’t we find multiple, distinctly separate nested hierarchies? Why shouldn’t we find outlier species that, by chance circumstances, bore no distinguishable relationship whatsoever to the known hierarchy?

Given non-teleological natural forces that do not have a specific goal in mind, why should there be only one branching line of descent for living organisms that falls into a neat, nested hierarchy (here assumed arguendo)? Over billions of years, is it not possible for living organisms to diverge so completely so as to lose all genetic material that would connect to any other historical lineage, even if life, for some strange reason (given materialist thinking), only originated once?

Given natural forces as the originator of life, why wouldn’t we expect there to be several different forms of life on earth that are not even remotely related? Even if related, why should we expect natural forces to leave evidence of the relationship? Couldn’t natural forces -given enough time and chance – find ways to eliminate evidence of these relationships? Given billions of years, isn’t it rather odd to think that natural forces couldn’t generate any other form of life, or sever the relationship evidence between a few organisms even once?

Given billions of years and all that available chance, our arguendo single, nested heirarchy of life leading back to a single UCA seems to me extremely unlikely – it smacks more of a design choice that frontloaded a specific search plan, prohibited clutter, excised outliers and optimized the chances for arriving at the goal.

Ultimately, keiths asks the question of IDists (to paraphrase)“why did the designer pick just one form of life and utilize just one lineage, when it could have utilized any number of alternate, non-nested systems?” – yet, keiths fails to ask the same question of the natural forces argument – why just one form of life, why one lineage, why one neat, nested hierarchy?

Keiths attempted logical argument claims to make the same assumptions about both natural and artificial causal agencies – that natural forces and design are both capable of originating life and generating the evolutionary processes and patterns we find. However, this is obviously not the only assumption keiths makes when it comes to the “natural forces” side of the argument; he assumes that natural forces could not have generated anything other than a nested hierarchy leading back to a UCA when it comes to biological life forms.

He simply asserts that this is what we should expect from natural forces and makes no case for it. If we provide the same assumptions on the ID side of the argument, then we must assume any designer could not have generated anything other than a nested hierarchy leading back to a UCA when it comes to biological life forms – which means that given the same assumptions on both sides of the ledger, keiths argument fails to produce a distinction between what we should expect to find if natural forces or if design agency generated life and evolution here on earth.

427 Replies to “Keith’s “Bomb” Defused & Debunked

  1. 1
    Andre says:

    Keith S’s argument failed on many levels….. another take down….

    nice WJM

  2. 2
    Joe says:

    First, let’s assume that genetically, living organisms do fall into a nested hierarchy.

    Fall into a tree pattern, maybe. But how would one construct a nested hierarchy based on genetics? “All organsims with X genes”- “all organisms with X genes plus Y genes”?

    The observed nested hierarchy is that of Linnean taxonomy. Even Theobald (keith s’ reference) agrees to that. It is constructed based on shared characteristics. To be in the Animal Kingdom the organism must have a basic set of defined characteristics. Every level under that includes those characteristics AND has some unique characteristics.

    Linne used it to demonstrate a Common Design.

    That said gradual evolution would produce a smooth blending of characteristics with its numerous transitional forms. Denton goes over this in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”.

    Evolution is too complex of a process to produce nice neat patterns. Every population can become like a hub of spokes giving rise to whatever works and yet is different from the original.

  3. 3
    fossil says:

    “Even if related, why should we expect natural forces to leave evidence of the relationship? Couldn’t natural forces -given enough time and chance – find ways to eliminate evidence of these relationships?” To me the answer is simply this: given the known average rate of erosion in non agricultural area in the presence of the commonly calculated rate of uplift there shouldn’t be any Cambrian fossils. They should all have been eroded away by now but we know that is not true which raises some very interesting questions and that is not even touching the presence of biological matter that is still in tack is said to be over 100 million years old.

  4. 4
    Jon Garvey says:

    Linne used it to demonstrate a Common Design.

    That said gradual evolution would produce a smooth blending of characteristics with its numerous transitional forms. Denton goes over this in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”.

    In the time of Linnaeus, it had long been assumed on the “principle of plenitude” that a rational God would have created all possible species. So the nested heirarchy wasn’t a problem for creation on those philosophical principles, but the lack of intermediates.

    There were various explanations for that – missing species were possibly in far off lands, or (from the later 17th century) on the other worlds, which would surely be inhabited.

    Or maybe they had once existed and were now extinct. So had the general idea of evolution taken hold earlier in the 18th century, it would certainly have been gradualistic on theological grounds (and I have a suspicion that some of that thinking made its way into Darwin’s theory).

    Bottom line – neither gradualism nor nested heirarchies support naturalistic evolution any more than they do Aristotelian or Neoplatonic “chain of being” arguments for the rational God of Creation – in fact the latter were used as evidence for God for centuries before evolution was a gleam in its mkother’s eye.

    Nevertheless theology in general, freed from particular philosophical restraints, can live with or without nested heirachies or gradualism.

    Evolution could do without a universal heirarchy, freed from Darwinism, if it had to, should the tree of life begin to look even more of a bush or forest rather than a tree. And it may well have to do without the smooth blending of gradualism if the evidence doesn’t turn up before the supply new fossil species dries up.

    It seems to me it’s a very old bomb with “Rational Creator” overpainted by “Naturalistic Evolution”.

  5. 5
    drc466 says:

    Further, Keith s claims that it is an “objective” nested heirarchy – that the same nested heirarchy falls out regardless of grouping criteria. This is demonstrably false – where the trees that Theobald uses are congruent, the placement criteria is congruent. Where the placement criteria is different, the trees are different. Keith s has shown: “Define A arbitrarily. Change A marginally. A is highly congruent with highly congruent A.”

  6. 6

    Indeed, one wonders why natural forces, over billions of years, would not produce – one way or another – many groups of species that we would scientifically identify as genetic orphans. It’s like nature deliberately and specifically only left evidence of UCD and a single, universal nested hierarchy (if one assumes the claims made by Darwinists about the available evidence) and nothing that could even potentially undermine it.

  7. 7
    Box says:

    How to defuse a “bomb” multiple times – an overview.

    [ Keith s bomb: ]

    1. We observe objective nested hierarchies (ONH)
    2. Unguided evolution explains ONH
    3. A designer explains ONH, but also a trillion of alternatives.
    4. Both unguided evolution and a designer are capable of causing ONH.
    Conclusion: Unguided evolution is a trillion times better at explaining ONH.


    [ Premise 1, We observe objective nested hierarchies ]

    This claim is controversial; e.g.

    BA77 #442: The abuse of cladistics by Darwinists is further exposed here by Dr. Meyer (…)

    [ Premise 2, Unguided evolution explains ONH ]

    Joe #40: Unguided evolution does not and cannot explain nested hierarchies. Gradual evolution would produce a smooth blending of defining characteristics which would ruin any attempt at an objective nested hierarchy.

    Joe #523: If gradual evolution predicts a smooth blending of traits AND it does not have a direction, traits can be lost, why would it predict an objective nested hierarchy seeing that both of those would negate such a thing?
    A smooth blending of traits would cause an overlap in the defined sets. Can’t have an overlap with nested hierarchies. Darwin had to call upon extinctions that just so happened to create the distinct sets Linnaeus used as evidence for a Common Design.

    BA77, in #440, provides several links to articles that contest ONH.

    [ Premise 3, A designer explains ONH, but also a trillion of alternatives ]

    It has been pointed out to Keith, multiple times, that we have no way of knowing how many options are available for a creator. For all we know it may have been only one. Post #466, #467, #712.

    [ Premise 4, Both unguided evolution and a designer are capable of causing ONH ]

    It has been pointed out to Keith, multiple times, that given this premise 4 ID already stipulates agreement with the conclusion that “natural forces” would be the better explanation.

    WJM#476: He’s loaded his argument with a premise that necessarily guarantees his conclusion.

    WJM #550: keiths argument is entirely trivial. ID already stipulates that if natural forces can plausibly generate the artifact, natural forces are the better explanation.

    WJM #713: Nobody on the ID side considers your argument a bomb because it assumes the very thing the “bomb” comment by Mr. Arrington challenges – that Darwinists should demonstrate or prove in some way that natural forces are a plausible cause of the artifacts in question. All you do is assume that challenge met to reach a trivial conclusion IDists already stipulate.

    [ Conclusion: Unguided evolution is a trillion times better at explaining ONH ]

    The “trillion” from premise 3 has found its way into the conclusion that doesn’t seem to make sense. It’s up to Keith to explain why it should be there.

    WJM #467: What makes it likely or not that a designer is responsible for an artifact has nothing to do with how many different designs or engineering methods were available.

    ENTERS VJTORLEY!! He poinst out that even if we grant all the premises and allow the trillion to enter in the conclusion (!) … even then the argument fails:

    VJTorley #1206: Unguided evolution provides a very good explanation for the existence of objective nested hierarchies in Nature, and if this were the only salient fact to be explained, it would win as a hypothesis. But the existence of proteins and of a genetic code are arguably far more basic facts about life, which unguided evolution completely fails to explain, and the margin of difference here is much greater than trillions to one: it is 10^1,018 to one for life, and (10^164)^x to one, for a biological structure (e.g. a molecular machine) containing x 150-amino-acid proteins.

    – All the #numbers provided refer to posts in this thread

  8. 8

    Joe makes the other side of the case I presented in the OP; why not a smooth blending with no nested heirachy? Conversely, why not a disjointed hodge-podge of groups that time and chance has turned into evidential orphans?

    Keiths simply assumes that nature would produce, and leave substantive evidence for, a nested heirarchy leading back to a UCA. To be fair in his argument, he must assume the same thing about a designer, leaving his “bomb” inert.

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    Any thread that escalates past more than a couple dozen comments in the first day is guaranteed to turn many away from following. I saw that keiths had some kind of argument but because of the number of comments didn’t look further. I am surprised it was based on UCD. This is rather stupid.

    Did he ever develop a mechanism for change in species in order to accomplish the observed hierarchies if in fact they exist. If he doesn’t then his second assertion falls apart and the rest is meaningless. There is no way ONH can evolve naturally with out a plausible mechanism of which there are none.

    In his third assertion, he falls into the problem of trying to understand the designer. Maybe the designer picked the most efficient mechanism for life. The designer could have experimented with multiple variations but these other life forms would have long disappeared from any discoverable evidence. The secret to life is a functioning ecology and maybe other life forms got in the way or couldn’t survive.

    Is keiths’ nonsense what generated over 1200 comments?

  10. 10
    Vishnu says:

    Now we can stop referring to keiths’s bomb as a bomb and call it what it is: keiths’s fart.

  11. 11
    Box says:

    William,

    I do hope you don’t mind me posting an overview of several objections to keiths “bomb”. It is not my intent to distract attention from the new objection raised in your OP.

    For me, VJTorley takes the icing on the cake, by pointing out that the argument fails to make a substantial case for unguided evolution – even if we can grant all premises and allow the trillion into the conclusion (see #7).

    Your “main debunking point” is an awfully close second.

  12. 12
    Box says:

    correction #11: (…) – even if we grant all premisses (…)

  13. 13
    Thorton says:

    Vishnu

    Now we can stop referring to keiths’s bomb as a bomb and call it what it is: keiths’s fart.

    Vishnu has developed quite an anal fixation of late. That’s undoubtedly the closest he’s ever come to studying biology.

  14. 14

    Not at all Box – it’s a good summary and those points deserve reiteration here.

  15. 15
    Collin says:

    I haven’t read through the 1300 plus comments on the other thread. Has anyone given possible examples of a violation of the nested hierarchy?

    Would the platypus be an example?

    also, I heard once that the kangaroo and humans share more DNA than humans and rats. If true, wouldn’t that be a violation of the nested hierarchy?

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    Collin- the fact that gradual evolution predicts numerous transitional forms is an example of a violation of the nested hierarchy.

    Also just because nested hierarchies can be depicted as branching patterns does NOT mean all branching patterns are nested hierarchies.

    And nested hierarchies are just one way we try to classify things. They are purely artificial constructs.

  17. 17
    Collin says:

    Joe, sorry I haven’t been up to date on the other thread, but if it could be shown that the transitional forms led to certain features, and that only the descendents of those forms had that feature, then would there not be a nested hierarchy?

    This is why I think that convergent evolution is a challenge to darwinism. It shows that one feature can be taken from one species and incorporated into another, much like an engineer copies designed from one piece of software or hardware to another.

  18. 18
    drc466 says:

    Collin,
    I agree, convergent evolution is a serious challenge. My favorite example is reptiles that give live birth (lizards and snakes). All other reptiles are egg-layers; some lizards and snakes are egg-layers; so where did live-birth come from? What is the evolutionary pathway to live-birth in snakes and lizards? Are live-birth lizards closer related to live-birth snakes than they are to egg-laying lizards?

  19. 19
    Collin says:

    drc466,

    Thanks for those examples. Although I’m sure there could be some hand-waiving and explaining away of such things, I think that each example of discontinuities makes the argument of nested hierarchies weaker and weaker for the darwinist.

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    Transitional forms contain a mix of traits. If you have a category for “mammals” and one for “reptiles”, where do the mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals fit in?

  21. 21
    william spearshake says:

    Joe, categories (taxa) are man made concepts. As such, there are many examples of species that don’t exactly fit in one or the other category. That is exactly what we would expect from evolution.

    If ID is real, I am always amazed at why he/she/it would design organisms to look exactly like they evolved. Is it just to test our faith. Not that ID is about religion.

  22. 22
    beau says:

    WS

    The ignorance of the creation account, in the Bible at least, astounds me. There are only three creation accounts in the genesis narrative. I would suggest you take a look at some Rabbi commentary that predates this debate. They held some views very similar to today’s scientific views, those views weren’t used as a retreat from science seeing as science hadn’t really arrived. You seem to think the designer, God in this case, is trying to fool everyone but there’s nothing to substantiate that. I suppose this isn’t the place for that debate do I’ll leave it alone.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    beau, actually I think the creation account in Genesis, Psalms, and Job, matches up extremely well with what our modern science, (modern science which was born out of Judeo-Christian metaphysics by the way), is telling us. Don’t believe me? Well let’s take an overview of what our science has discovered and what classical Theism predicted.

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/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 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/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 organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). –

    7. Naturalism/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). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal 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. –

    10. Naturalism/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(disparity), then rapid diversity within that 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. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/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.”. –

    13. Naturalism/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, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.

    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. – In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin – (video)
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Sure someone may argue over the details, (as atheists are wont to do), but as far as the overview of modern science is concerned, the evidence is a slam dunk for Theism~!

  24. 24
    drc466 says:

    ws @21

    If ID is real, I am always amazed at why he/she/it would design organisms to look exactly like they evolved.

    Evolutionists think they look exactly like they evolved. Non-evolutionists think they look like they were exquisitely designed, with some common characterististics, some not-so-common characteristics, and some fantastically unique characteristics.
    As has been repeatedly pointed out to you and others, arguing what a Designer “should” have done is a theological argument, not a scientific one. However, to play your game, let’s consider what I would have done if I were a Designer and didn’t want anyone to mistake my creations for “random chance”:
    1) I would create a huge variety of creations – in the millions, even.
    2) I would ensure that even the “simplest” form of creation was ridiculously complex – arguably as complex as the the “most” complex form
    3) I would mix and match forms and functions in a way guaranteed to prove that they could not have happened in a single event (aka “convergent evolution”)
    4) I would create some of those “convergent” traits in organisms so that they are even unique compared to their most similar “cousins” (e.g. eyeballs in octopi, live-birth in lizards and snakes)
    5) I would not put any “transitional” functions in my organisms – like half a wing, or bones that are half-hollow, half-marrow.
    6) I would create organisms that have multiple interconnected systems that defy gradual evolutionary development – e.g. brains, nerves, eyeballs, and image-processing software; giraffe necks; bacterial flagellum; blood-clotting; etc.
    7) I would create organisms that have beauty without function (e.g. peacock feathers).
    8) I would create organisms that have incredible built-in variation (e.g. dogs)
    9) I would create my organisms in groups with huge disconnects that defy evolutionary explanation (e.g. single/multi-cell, asexual/sexual, vertebrate/invertebrate, animal/vegetable, etc.)
    10) I would build in to my organisms functionality that far exceeds and challenges the intellectual capabilities of my most advanced creation (e.g. biomimetics)
    11) I would make my organisms so designed, that even the most misguided humans would have to use the word “design” to properly describe how they function, down to the cellular level.

    Furthermore – if life looks “exactly” like it evolved – how come evolution has only been a generally accepted theory in the last hundred years or so, and a majority of the earth’s population still doesn’t accept that all life is the result of unguided, random processes? Your’s is, at best, a minority opinion.

  25. 25
    congregate says:

    drc466 @18
    Those are excellent questions. If you want answers this may not be the place to ask them, though. The only thing ID can tell us is that they were all designed at some point.

    Joe might be able to give an answer. He understands that ID is not anti-evolution.

  26. 26
    beau says:

    BA77

    I agree with you completely.

  27. 27
    Joe says:

    william spearshake:

    Joe, categories (taxa) are man made concepts.

    I know. So are nested hierarchies.

    As such, there are many examples of species that don’t exactly fit in one or the other category. That is exactly what we would expect from evolution.

    What type of evolution? Unguided evolution can’t get beyond prokaryotes

    If ID is real, I am always amazed at why he/she/it would design organisms to look exactly like they evolved.

    They are evolved- the evolved by design from the designed organisms.

  28. 28
    keith s says:

    William,

    Thank you for starting a dedicated thread. I’ll make any further comments regarding my argument here.

    Barry may want to make this a sticky thread, because discussion is likely to continue for at least a few days. (On the other hand, he may want to see it scroll off the front page as soon as possible. The IDers here aren’t doing very well in their rebuttal attempts, and that’s an embarrassment for the ID cause.)

    Readers can find my argument here (and in the associated comments):
    Things That IDers Don’t Understand, Part 1 — Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent

    The argument was discussed at length in this recent UD thread:
    No Bomb After 10 Years

    No bomb, eh Barry? 🙂

  29. 29
    keith s says:

    I’ll start by reposting this, as a reminder:

    An observation:

    Imagine that the situation were reversed, and that ID was trillions of times better than unguided evolution at explaining the objective nested hierarchy.

    How many IDers would be saying, “Oh, well that doesn’t mean that ID is the better hypothesis. We need to be cautious. ID might be the better hypothesis, but only if we can prove that the designer exists and that there are no barriers or limitations that would prevent him from producing the ONH.”

    The very thought is laughable. Drop the double standard, IDers.

  30. 30
    keith s says:

    Let me also repost this, to counteract a mistake that Box and William keep making:

    Box,

    A final word on the matter.

    I wish it were, but I have this sinking feeling that you’ll keep repeating the same mistakes.

    It has been explained to you again in post #1116, that one cannot construct an argument with a premise, which assumes the capability of natural forces, that ID can win. IOW such a premise is unacceptable for ID.

    Repeat your mistake as many times as you like. It’s still a mistake, and I’ve already explained why.

    You want to give ID an unfair advantage. I want to treat ID and unguided evolution equally, to see which one prevails on a level playing field.

    Of course that is “unacceptable” to you, because ID loses on a level playing field, and you don’t like that. You want to rig the game so that ID will win despite being an inferior hypothesis.

    That is unacceptable to any honest, science-minded person.

    Let me try once more to explain this to you.

    1. “Unguided evolution produced the ONH” is a hypothesis. It might be true; it might be false. If it’s true, then unguided evolution must exist, and it must have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH. If it’s false, then either unguided evolution doesn’t exist (or was prevented from operating), or else it doesn’t have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH.

    2. “A designer produced the ONH” is a hypothesis. It might be true; it might be false. If it’s true, then a designer must exist, and it must have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH. If it’s false, then either the designer doesn’t exist (or was prevented from operating), or else it doesn’t have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH.

    3. We know that unguided evolution exists. Even the most rabid IDer/YEC will admit that antibiotic resistance can evolve, though there are people who actually believe that natural selection is a tautology, including UD President Barry Arrington, believe it or not.

    4. We don’t know that the putative designer exists, so ID is already behind in the race.

    5. We cannot prove that unguided evolution could accomplish every single step required to produce the ONH. That would require not only that we know every single step, which is impoosible — it would also require us to know unguided evolution’s capabilities well enough to decide if each step was within its reach.

    6. We cannot prove that the designer could accomplish every single step required to produce the ONH. That would require not only that we know every single step, which is impoosible — it would also require us to know the designer’s capabilities well enough to decide if each step was within its reach.
    7. If we assume that the ONH is out of unguided evolution’s reach, then of course unguided evolution cannot explain the ONH.

    8. If we assume that the ONH is out of the designer’s reach, then of course ID cannot explain the ONH.

    9. If we took that attitude, then we’d have to rule out both ID and unguided evolution! That would be a ridiculous conclusion, because one of them might actually be the correct explanation.

    10. Are we stuck? Of course not. Instead of assuming that they don’t work, we can assume that they do. Then we can see if one of them fits the evidence better than the other.

    11. If we take that approach and assume, temporarily and for the sake of argument alone, that unguided evolution is responsible for the diversity of life, we can see that unguided evolution predicts an objective nested hierarchy out of the trillions of possibilities.

    12. If we take that approach and assume, temporarily and for the sake of argument alone, that the designer is responsible for the diversity of life, we can see that ID does does not predict an objective nested hierarchy out of the trillions of possibilities.

    We have treated ID and unguided evolution exactly the same, and evaluated them on a level playing field. If we assume that neither works, then of course neither can explain the ONH. If we assume that they do work, then unguided evolution makes a spectacularly successful, one in trillions prediction: the existence of the ONH. Meanwhile, ID falls flat on its face. None of the possibilities are ruled out, so under an ID hypothesis, we would expect with 99.999… % probability to find that there was not an objective nested hierarchy.

    If you treat them equally, unguided evolution blows ID out of the water. It isn’t even close.
    ID is a profoundly irrational position.

    I’m not sure I can make this any more obvious, Box. If you still don’t get it, I’m afraid it may be out of your reach.

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    Great, keith s can only repeat his already refuted trope. He doesn’t even understand the concept of nested hierarchies.

    Unguided evolution cannot produce objective nested hierarchies. Well if we started with an objective nested hierarchy already in place, then it may be able to keep it intact.

    We know unguided evolution exists and we know it causes disease and deformities. We know it is not capable of producing the diversity of life. Heck even given starting populations of prokaryotes unguided evolution can’t get any further than that.

    An finally, as Linnaeus understood, an objective nested hierarchy is evidence for a Common Design.

  32. 32
    logically_speaking says:

    Keith it seems can’t see the wood for the trees.

  33. 33
    Mapou says:

    Both nested hierarchies and horizontal gene sharing (aka multiple inheritance in human engineering and design) are unmistakable signs of intelligent design.

  34. 34
  35. 35
    rich says:

    Mapou @ 33 : Because…??

  36. 36
    Thorton says:

    It’s the ID-Creationist way. When confronted by science they can’t hand wave away, just declare victory and run for the door.

  37. 37
    drc466 says:

    It’s the Evolutionist way. Accuse their opponents of behavior they are guilty of.

  38. 38
    Thorton says:

    drc466

    It’s the Evolutionist way. Accuse their opponents of behavior they are guilty of.

    You ran away from my question about “what barrier prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones?” so fast you left skid marks. All of the ID-Creationists did. You also ran from my list of ID questions.

    Did you grow a spine yet and will try some answers? Or will you just declare victory and run away again?

  39. 39
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    You still have not giving us a reasonable explanation on how an unguided process created a guided process that prevents unguided processes from happening.

    Please Keith S you have to explain PCD if you are to make a claim that the blind workings of matter did it!

  40. 40
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    You asked;

    “what barrier prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones?”

    This is not a mystery 🙂

    The increase of information is the barrier, Macroevolution requires increase in genetic information via mutations. An increase in genetic information via these random mutations has never been observed. If you make the claim that there is no barrier then you have to give us the papers that prove an increase in genetic information.

  41. 41
    keith s says:

    Moving on to William’s OP:

    1. William yet again repeats his (and Box’s) mistake by claiming that my argument assumes its conclusion. My previous comment makes their mistake obvious.

    2. William writes:

    First, let’s assume that genetically, living organisms do fall into a nested hierarchy.

    It isn’t just genetically, William. It’s also morphologically. Have you read Theobald?

    3. William writes:

    Keiths claims that a nested hierarchy leading back to a UCA is what we’d expect to find if natural forces were responsible for life and evolution – yet, he doesn’t explain this expectation – why natural forces could not be expected to produce something other than what we would find to be a nested hierarchy.
    If the manufacture of living organisms occurred once in the very early history of earth, why not more than once? Why couldn’t there be multiple ancestral lines leading back to many origin of life points and multiple, entirely separate lines of descent? Why shouldn’t we find multiple, distinctly separate nested hierarchies? Why shouldn’t we find outlier species that, by chance circumstances, bore no distinguishable relationship whatsoever to the known hierarchy?

    You’re misunderstanding the inference process for nested hierarchies. You will always get a single nested hierarchy, because that is what the inference process is designed to produce. (Cue a legion of confused IDers saying “You can’t do that! Then you’re assuming common descent!” I’m resigned to my fate as a remedial teacher.)

    The inference process, by itself, does not answer the question “How are these organisms related?”. It answers the question, “Assuming these organisms are related, which nested hierarchy is most likely to be correct?”

    What establishes a nested hierarchy as objective is not the fact that it can be inferred — you can do that with any collection of objects, even if they are completely unrelated. What makes the hierarchy objective is that it matches well with other hierarchies based on different derived characters.

    Please, please, read Theobald, people. You can’t criticize this stuff convincingly unless you actually understand it.

    4. William writes:

    Given non-teleological natural forces that do not have a specific goal in mind, why should there be only one branching line of descent for living organisms that falls into a neat, nested hierarchy (here assumed arguendo)?

    As explained above, it doesn’t matter. For the purposes of my argument, we don’t care about the evolutionary relationships reflected in the nested hierarchy or whether they’re accurate. (They generally are, but that’s not required for my argument to work.) All we care about is the fact that you’ll get an objective nested hierarchy if evolution is unguided, but the odds are trillions to one that you won’t get an objective nested hierarchy if design is involved.

    I know you’re reluctant to learn from “Darwinists”, William, so why not ask vjtorley to explain this to you?

    5. William writes:

    Over billions of years, is it not possible for living organisms to diverge so completely so as to lose all genetic material that would connect to any other historical lineage, even if life, for some strange reason (given materialist thinking), only originated once?

    It isn’t just genetics, William. It’s also morphology, which can be gleaned from the fossil record. Also, many genetic sequences are in fact conserved. Do you understand why?

    The rest of your OP fails for the reasons I’ve already given.

  42. 42
    keith s says:

    drc466:

    Further, Keith s claims that it is an “objective” nested heirarchy – that the same nested heirarchy falls out regardless of grouping criteria. This is demonstrably false – where the trees that Theobald uses are congruent, the placement criteria is congruent. Where the placement criteria is different, the trees are different. Keith s has shown: “Define A arbitrarily. Change A marginally. A is highly congruent with highly congruent A.”

    drc466,

    My advice to you is the same as for William. Read Theobald carefully. If you still don’t get it, ask vjtorley to explain it to you. You might be reluctant to learn from a “Darwinist”, but perhaps you’ll accept instruction from a fellow IDer who understands that the objective nested hierarchy is real and that it requires an explanation.

  43. 43
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    How about responding to my objection, which is a legitimate objection…….

    How did an unguided process create a guided process that prevents unguided processes from happening?

  44. 44
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    I really don’t want to burst your bubble but Theobald’s +29 Evidences form Evolution has been debunked…..

    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
    http://releasingthetruth.wordp.....06/15/dev/
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41071.html

    It is bunk!

    A website that gives you advice on how to debate creationists can not ever be considered a scientific website!

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....nists.html

    What is wrong with you Keith S?

  45. 45
    gpuccio says:

    keith s:

    As I have seen no answer to my post #1239 on the “bomb” thread, I paste it again here, for your convenience.

    “I will debunk here your old pseudo argument about the circularity of dFSCI. It is completely false. I don’t know if you believe it seriously or not. That’s your problem, not mine.

    You say:

    You only infer design when RV and ‘necessity mechanisms’ have been ruled out. That will create some false negatives, but it’s better to have false negatives than false positives, as you have pointed out.

    Correct. If RV or necessity can explain what we observe, they are better explanations than design, and there is no need to infer design.

    Then you say:

    So every functional sequence falls into one of three categories:

    1) simple enough to have been produced by RV (and, of course, design)
    2) too complex for RV, but could have been produced by ‘necessity mechanisms’ (and, of course, design)
    3) out of reach for RV and ‘necessity mechanisms’, so could only be produced by design

    Wrong. The correct statement is:

    “So every functional sequence falls into one of three categories:

    1) simple enough to have been produced by RV (and, of course, design)
    2) too complex for RV, but could have been produced by ‘necessity mechanisms’ (and, of course, design)
    3) out of reach for RV and ‘necessity mechanisms’, so we need some other explantion, if we really observe that type of outcome”.

    You seem to miss a very important point: there is no need a priori that sequences that cannot be explained neither by RV nor by necessity should exist. If they exist, certainly looking for some other explanation is the reasonable way to proceeed. Desing needs not enter the reasoning at this point.

    Let’s go on. You say:

    Design is only inferred if the tests for #1 and #2 are not satisfied, meaning we “fall through” to the default, which is #3 — design.

    Completely wrong. You are intentionally cancelling the most important part of my reasoning, which is the following:

    “But there are many observable examples of sequences which cannot be explained neither by RV nor by necessity (IOWs which exhibit dFSCI). Do we know the origin of those sequences. In may cases we do, because we have direct information about their origin. And in all those cases, the sequence comes from a design process, defined as a process where a conscious intelligent agent purposefully outputs the specific form to the object from a conscious representation of it.

    That empirical observation tells us a very important point: that a design process is a cause of dFSCI.

    Indeed, all the objects exhibiting dFSCI of which we can independently ascertain the origin come from a design process. There is no counter example known. Therefore, when we use dFSCI to detect design in a controlled setting where the origin of the object can be independently ascertained, it has 100% specificity (no false positives).”

    Where is all that in your criticism? You have intentionally ignored that part of the reasoning, which is the most important part.

    Then you go on:

    Now look at your criteria for establishing the presence of dFSCI:

    a) High functional information in the string (excludes RV as an explanation)

    b) No known necessity mechanism that can explain the string (excludes necessity explanation)

    Correct.

    So dFSCI is attributed to a sequence if it can’t be explained by RV or necessity mechanisms.

    Correct.

    But then you say:

    But we saw earlier that design is attributed to a sequence if it can’t be explained by RV or necessity mechanisms.

    Wrong. Completely. We saw no such thing.

    Try to understand, for once (I know, you will not).

    Design is attributed to a sequence if we have direct evidence that it comes form a design process. This is the gold standard in our 2×2 table to asses the specificity of dFSCI. It informs us on what is called “the condition”, true or false.

    Design is inferred for a sequence if it exhibits dFSCI (it has high functional complexity, and there is no known mechanism which can explain its specific configuration). This is the “test” we use to detect design, and informs us on what is called the “test result” (positive or negative).

    So we build a bayesian 2×2 table. If all cases which are test positive are also condition true (IOWs, if all test positives are true positives), then both specificity and PPV are 100%.

    Where is the circularity? Only in your deluded mind.

    So, you say:

    Therefore, to say that dFSCI implies design is to say nothing more than this:

    If something cannot be explained by RV or necessity mechanisms, then it cannot be explained by RV or necessity mechanisms.

    Absolutely not. What we say is that dFSCI is a reliable marker of design, with 100% specificity and no false positive. IOWs, it means:

    “If something cannot be explained by RV or necessity mechanisms, we can infer with very good empirical reliability (100% specificity) that it came from a design process, IOWs that the specific form we observe in the object was purposefully outputted to the object by a conscious intelligent agent from a conscious representation of it.”

    You conclude:

    The circularity could not be more obvious.

    The only thing which is obvious here is your bad reasoning.”

  46. 46
    keith s says:

    Hi Vincent,

    You wrote:

    I agree that the existence of a barrier needs to be demonstrated. It is my understanding that Douglas Axe’s work does just that, by showing that the odds of unguided processes stumbling upon a functional protein are comparable to the odds of finding a needle in a haystack. That’s a probabilistic barrier. If you think there’s something wrong with Axe’s calculations, then I’d be interested to hear why. I’d be even more interested to hear why you object to evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin’s calculation of 1 in 10^1,018 as the odds of life arising as a result of unguided processes, in the observable universe, during the time available.

    I think Koonin’s number is highly questionable, but that actually makes no difference to my argument. As I explained yesterday, my argument is agnostic regarding OOL:

    How life began is a separate question from how it evolved afterwards. This is easy to see. All four combinations are logically possible:

    1. Life was created and evolution was guided.
    2. Life was created and evolution was unguided.
    3. Life arose naturally and evolution was guided.
    4. Life arose naturally and evolution was unguided.

    The evidence being discussed in this thread rules out #1 and #3.

    My argument works whether or not OOL happened naturally.

    As for Axe, there is a huge problem with his experiment. He takes two related but highly dissimilar enzymes and tries to determine how many nucleotides would have to change to get from the first enzyme’s function to the second’s.

    This is bogus, because no one claims that the second enzyme evolved from the first, or vice-versa. They are related, but that doesn’t mean that one evolved from the other. All it means is that they have a common ancestor.

    For Axe’s experiment to be successful, he would have needed to demonstrate that the two enzymes couldn’t have evolved from a common ancestor.

    When arguing for the existence of an Intelligent Designer, ID makes as few assumptions as possible about the Designer, and about the Designer’s modus operandi. That is as it should be. However, when responding to a scientific objection to the hypothesis that life (or the universe) was designed, it is perfectly legitimate for an ID advocate to introduce an assumption about the Designer, in order to counter that objection. Provided the assumption in question is reasonably plausible, this is a fair argumentative tactic.

    It isn’t enough for the assumption to be plausible. It has to be hugely more plausible than the alternatives, because that is the only way to counteract the trillions to one advantage that unguided evolution already has.

    Your efficiency constraint doesn’t meet that high bar, because it’s just as plausible to assume (for instance) that the designer is powerful enough that he doesn’t need to bother about efficiency.

    Note that this does not commit Intelligent Design to the assumption in question; that would only follow if it could be shown that no alternative assumption could rebut the objection to the existence of a Designer.

    ID would be committed to some assumption that was so overwhelmingly plausible as to offset the trillions-to-one advantage of unguided evolution. Otherwise it would lose the race.

    That depends on what phenomena one is examining. Unguided evolution provides a very good explanation for the existence of objective nested hierarchies in Nature, and if this were the only salient fact to be explained, it would win as a hypothesis. But the existence of proteins and of a genetic code are arguably far more basic facts about life, which unguided evolution completely fails to explain, and the margin of difference here is much greater than trillions to one: it is 10^1,018 to one for life, and (10^164)^x to one, for a biological structure (e.g. a molecular machine) containing x 150-amino-acid proteins.

    Again, OOL is irrelevant to my argument, which works regardless of how life originated.

    Finally, I’d like to draw your attention to a comment of Box’s:

    Keith, questioning capabilities is something else then questioning existence. I questioned the capabilities of unguided evolution. You ‘retaliated’ by questioning the existence of the designer (instead of the designer[‘s] capability).

    I think this is a very telling point.

    I responded to that point here:

    No, I questioned both the existence and the capabilities of the designer:

    Because ID can’t explain the evidence unless you assume that there was a designer on the scene and you assume that the designer had the necessary capabilities.

    And the only reason you didn’t question the existence of unguided evolution is because we both know that it exists. Even IDers accept that microevolution can be unguided.

    I need to get to bed, so I’ll respond to the final part of your comment tomorrow.

    I have to go now. Talk to you later.

    See you later.

  47. 47
    Bob O'H says:

    Just to pick up on one point…

    If the manufacture of living organisms occurred once in the very early history of earth, why not more than once? Why couldn’t there be multiple ancestral lines leading back to many origin of life points and multiple, entirely separate lines of descent? Why shouldn’t we find multiple, distinctly separate nested hierarchies? Why shouldn’t we find outlier species that, by chance circumstances, bore no distinguishable relationship whatsoever to the known hierarchy?

    This might be possible, but it would require the rate at which life originates to be relatively high.

    For life to get going it needs resources. If proto-life were to start now, I think it’s likely that it would be out-competed for resources by current life, which has had more time to evolve so it is more efficient at using the resources that are available.

    Thus, if life was to have evolved more than once and still be present, it would have to have either been a long time ago (before living organisms got really good at exploiting resources), or it would have to be using resources that current life can’t use. Given how pervasive life is, the latter seems unlikely (although, in fairness, not impossible).

  48. 48
    keith s says:

    gpuccio,

    We had this argument two years ago, and you lost. The points I made in that thread are still valid, so there is no reason for me to reinvent the wheel.

    Clearly you are not going to change your mind, regardless of the strength of my argument, so I am content to leave it there. Let’s let the onlookers judge for themselves (if they even care).

    My comments start here, at TSZ. Your end of the conversation took place at UD, because you were refusing to post at TSZ for some reason. (I couldn’t post at UD, of course, because I was banned.)

    You many want to post a link to your end of the conversation in case onlookers are interested.

  49. 49
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    I think Koonin’s number is highly questionable, but that actually makes no difference to my argument. As I explained yesterday, my argument is agnostic regarding OOL:

    You think Koonin’s number is questionable? S you have not actually done the math you’re responding on a gut feel? This is the crunch of your supposed bomb?

    How you feel about it?

    If you can’t explain OOL you can’t explain evolution, PZ Myers calls people that try and separate the two dishonest! Are you dishonest?

    And Box’s observation is correct…. Please can you give us the capabilities of unguided processes?

    That is all I’ve been asking for from you

    Please show how an unguided process created a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happening!

  50. 50
    gpuccio says:

    keith s:

    My arguments are here, in post #45. Clear and true, for all to read.

    I have nothing to add.

  51. 51
    Joe says:

    keith s is either the most ignorant or most dishonest person to ever grace Uncommon Descent.

  52. 52
    Joe says:

    Well OK perhaps keith s and thorton are in a tie:

    “what barrier prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones?”

    1- There aren’t any known microevolutionary events that can be extrapolated into macro

    AND

    2- Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.– John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

    thorton the ignorant just ignores that as if its ignorance is a refutation.

  53. 53
    Joe says:

    keith s misrepresents Theobald and he is too stupid to realize it.

  54. 54
    gpuccio says:

    Joe:

    “keith s is either the most ignorant or most dishonest person to ever grace Uncommon Descent.”

    Maybe only the most arrogant. Well, one of the most…

  55. 55
    Joe says:

    And keith s blows at science:

    For Axe’s experiment to be successful, he would have needed to demonstrate that the two enzymes couldn’t have evolved from a common ancestor.

    No, moron, YOU need to show they could have evolved via unguided evolution. Science does not prove negatives you ignorant troll.

  56. 56
    Joe says:

    His ignorance fuels his arrogance.

  57. 57
    Joe says:

    keith s doesn’t even know what a nested hierarchy is nor what it entails.

    Seeing that he is ignoring me perhaps someone else can have him link to a definition of a nested hierarchy- a valid definition from an authoritative source- for example:
    Summativity– The sum of all entities at one level of organization is equal to the sum of all entities at some other level- Knox “The use of hierarchies as organizational models of systematics” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63:1-49, page 8

    For example in Linnean taxonomy*, ie a nested hierarchy, the Animal Kingdom consists of and contains all of the levels and entities below it. It is the sum of its parts.

    Linnean Classification:

    The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).

    An Army can also be put into a nested hierarchy- with the Army example we would be classifying the US Army which is broken up into Field Armies, which contain and consist of Corps, which contain and consist of Divisions, which contain and consist of Brigades, which contain and consist of Battalions, which contain and consist of Companies, which contain and consist of Platoons, which contain and consist of Squads & Sections. Squads and sections contain and consist of soldiers. Each level, down to the soldier, has a well defined role and place in the scheme.

    The Army consists of and contains, soldiers- it exhibits summativity. Andy Schueler didn’t even know what summativity was.

    See also the summary of the principles of hierarchy theory:

    The Hierarchy theory is a dialect of general systems theory. It has emerged
    as part of a movement toward a general science of complexity. Rooted in the work
    of economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean
    Piaget, hierarchy theory focuses upon levels of organization and issues of
    scale. There is significant emphasis upon the observer in the system.

    Hierarchies occur in social systems, biological structures, and in the
    biological taxonomies. Since scholars and laypersons use hierarchy and
    hierarchical concepts commonly, it would seem reasonable to have a theory of
    hierarchies. Hierarchy theory uses a relatively small set of principles to keep
    track of the complex structure and a behavior of systems with multiple levels. A
    set of definitions and principles follows immediately:

    Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In
    less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric
    relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower
    levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships
    downwards.

    Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties
    characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of
    levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below. For
    example, an individual human being may be a member of the level i) human, ii)
    primate, iii) organism or iv) host of a parasite, depending on the relationship
    of the level in question to those above and below.

    Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by
    virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and
    below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities
    from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There
    is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that
    some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin
    parasites.

    Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by
    virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin
    parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a
    landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of
    organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a
    population.

    The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are
    two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the
    observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines
    the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The
    criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to
    each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for
    observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead
    to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate
    isolated classes.

    The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other
    levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but
    sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels
    by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving
    more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with
    greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being
    made of – lower levels.

    Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels
    which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more
    general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For
    example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them.
    Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of
    a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command
    is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking
    orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

    To achieve summativity the criteria “consist of and contain” must be met. NOTE- A parent population does NOT consist of nor contain it’s daughter populations. That is why any tree of life is not a nested hierarchy.

    Perhaps keith s thinks that the US Army arose via unguided evolution- he is stupid enough to believe something like that

  58. 58
    Joe says:

    And the kicker:

    Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. Knox, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics,”Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49″, 1998.

    keith s is too stupid to grasp that, also.

  59. 59
    Box says:

    Keith,

    Keith #46: How life began is a separate question from how it evolved afterwards.

    Keith #46: Again, OOL is irrelevant to my argument, which works regardless of how life originated.

    Thank you for your admission. So, your argument is seperate from – does nothing for – a naturalistic explanation for OOL, the existence of proteins and of a genetic code. You admit this wholeheartedly and this is exactly what VJTorley points out to you.

    IOW: even if we grant all 4 dubious [see post #7] premises and allow the trillion to find its (incomprehensible [see post #7]) way into the conclusion … even then your true objective – to make a case for a naturalistic explanation of life – is not met at all.

    VJTorley #1206: Unguided evolution provides a very good explanation for the existence of objective nested hierarchies in Nature, and if this were the only salient fact to be explained, it would win as a hypothesis. But the existence of proteins and of a genetic code are arguably far more basic facts about life, which unguided evolution completely fails to explain, and the margin of difference here is much greater than trillions to one: it is 10^1,018 to one for life, and (10^164)^x to one, for a biological structure (e.g. a molecular machine) containing x 150-amino-acid proteins.

    IOW Even if we grant that unguided evolution is the better explanation for the existence of objective nested hierarchies, there are still matters of much greater importance (e.g. proteins, genetic code, epigenetics, molecular machines) which needs to be explained by unguided evolution. And, as VJTorley points out, unguided evolution completely fails to explain those more important issues by dazzling margins, which overturn the unsubstantiated “trillion” by a magnitude.

    IOW even if we accept, arguendo, your claim that unguided evolution is the better explanation for the existence of objective nested hierarchies, that obviously does not entail that unguided evolution is a better explanation for all other (and more important) features of life.

  60. 60

    keiths, paraphrased: “If we assume everything that is necessary to reach my conclusion, and ignore everything that would falsify it, my conclusion is valid.”

    Well, to be fair, that’s pretty much all Darwinists.

  61. 61
    Vishnu says:

    Alan Fox,

    ‘Evolution’ appears to be in a downhill slide too.

    Not sure what the significance of any of this trending is.

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=evolution

  62. 62
    Vishnu says:

    “God” and “Jesus” is trending upwards.

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=god

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=jesus

    “Bible” is holding pretty steady

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=bible

    “Vishnu” is on the upswing. Wahoo!

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=vishnu

  63. 63
  64. 64
    Joe says:

    Vishnu- see what trend you get with “blind watchmaker evolution”. 😉

  65. 65
    Thorton says:

    Vishnu

    “God” and “Jesus” is trending upwards.

    “Bible” is holding pretty steady

    But ID isn’t about religion, right guys? 🙂

    You just can’t help yourselves. You try hard to hide it but ID’s religious nature always leaks out.

  66. 66
    Vishnu says:

    In all seriousness, the spike in the interest in “intelligent design” correlates with the Dover trial, which I suspect is the reason for the spike and then pretty much the same sort of downward trend as “evolution” has. The average person probably only cared about “intelligent design” during that brief period because it was in the news.

    Most people I know don’t care about intelligent design, (blind watchmaker) evolution, or biology at all. So, the trends are no surprise.

    All in good fun.

  67. 67
    Joe says:

    thorton the coward continues to conflate people’s personal biases with ID. How very small-minded of him

  68. 68
    velikovskys says:

    wjm,
    keiths, paraphrased: “If we assume everything that is necessary to reach my conclusion, and ignore everything that would falsify it, my conclusion is valid.”

    Wjm ” The necessary premises stem from what I have chosen to believe – IOW, I wish to believe in a meaningful good. In order for there to be a meaningful good, there are certain premises which are logically necessary.”

  69. 69
    Vishnu says:

    A few more downward trends just for funzies…

    Evolutionary biology

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=evolutionary%20biology

    Darwinism

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=darwinism

    Creationism

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=creationism

    Richard Dawkins

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=richard%20dawkins

    DNA

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=dna

    ORIGIN OF LIFE

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=origin%20of%20life

    Of course, that DNA and ORIGIN OF LIFE are in downward trends, means, what?

    I guess I miss the point Alan was trying to make with this citation.

    Some UPWARD trends

    Ebola

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=ebola

    HALLOWEEN (seasonal)

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=halloween

    PORN

    https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=porn

  70. 70
    bornagain77 says:

    Vishnu, but thanks for pointing out once again how Darwinists continually, and deceptively, try to latch on anything that might support their theory, as opposed to ever actually demonstrating it remotely feasible in the lab (Behe), but as with everything else, the slightest scrutiny usually reveals their shallow tactics for what they are. Will Mr. Fox admit his error, or that he intentionally tried to mislead people? I certainly don’t expect him too. So, Once again thanks for calling his bluff.

  71. 71
    Silver Asiatic says:

    You just can’t help yourselves. You try hard to hide it but ID’s religious nature always leaks out.

    The correlation between ID and religion should not be surprising. Religious-believers will obviously be more open to the ID inference. Beyond that, we’ve been seeing criticisms about ID that assume there is a designer and then ask about the nature of the designer.

    So, it’s ID critics that demand that ID to reach beyond the design inference.

    If a person is willing to assume that there was a designer — then the ID proposal is complete. If you want to know about the nature of the designer and what the designer actually did, why would you exclude religious explanations? In that case, the critic already granted that there was a designer capable of creating the diversity of life on earth (or creating on a cosmological scale).

    So, there’s nothing to hide in the ID inference. It just comes with a specific boundary within empirical science.

  72. 72

    velikovskys,

    And there you have the difference between keiths and I; I admit it when my premises stem from what I have chosen to believe. I don’t try to characterize them as “fair” premises that should be used by others to arrive at any supposedly objectively valid conclusion.

  73. 73
    Thorton says:

    Silver Asiatic

    The correlation between ID and religion should not be surprising.

    Of course it’s not surprising since the current version of ID was formulated solely as a political tool to get the Christian religion reintroduced into public school science classes. That was made clear almost a decade ago in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

    Many people in the scientific community see ID’s attempts to dumb down school science standards and bypass proper scientific processes as a real threat to the technological leadership of the U.S. That’s why we fight against the lies and chicanery. Believe in whatever Designer God you want but don’t try to fool anyone into thinking it’s science and don’t try to sneak it into schools.

  74. 74

    Thorton is, apparently, willfully ignorant.

    Unfortunately, in his Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling, Judge Jones bought into the revisionist history of ID that claims ID is just repackaged creationism, and the Judge presented a sharply truncated and inaccurate view of the intellectual history of design. A correct history will make it clear that “intelligent design” was not a term invented to avoid the Edwards ruling, but a project that has always been distinct from the core claims of creationism.

    Judge Jones traced the origins of ID back to the natural theology of William Paley and the arguments of the thirteenth century Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas. Even some critics of ID admit that “design arguments are not new,”1 for the debate over design in nature began at least as early as the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers.2 The Greek philosophers Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, and Anaximander believed that life could originate without any intelligent guidance.3 Plato and Aristotle, both advocated that a mind was required to explain life’s existence.4 In more modern times, Isaac Newton asked in his treatise Opticks, “Was the Eye contrived without Skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds? […] And these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from Phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent…”5

    http://www.discovery.org/a/8931

  75. 75
    Thorton says:

    William J Murray

    And there you have the difference between keiths and I

    The real difference is that keiths knows and understands the science being discussed. You’re just a guy in love with the sound of his own voice.

  76. 76
    Joe says:

    School science standards are as low as they can go with the teaching of the non-existent theory of evolution. Talk about bypassing proper scientific processes one needs to just look at evolutionism.

    As for science, unlike evolutionism, the claims of ID can be tested and potentially falsified.

  77. 77
    Joe says:

    BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!11!!!1

    The real difference is that keiths knows and understands the science being discussed.

    keith s has proven to be an ignoramus- willfully so. He doesn’t appear to know or understand anything but dishonesty.

  78. 78
    Thorton says:

    William J Murray

    Thorton is, apparently, willfully ignorant

    “cdesignproponentsists” 🙂

    You ID creationists totally face planted and you’re still whining about it.

  79. 79
    Joe says:

    William- thorton lives for willful ignorance. If it wasn’t for ignorance and dishonesty thorton wouldn’t have anything to put on his CV.

  80. 80
    Joe says:

    You ID creationists totally face planted

    Only to the willfully ignorant. Enter tiny tim…

  81. 81
    drc466 says:

    Thorton,

    You ran away from my question about “what barrier prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones?” so fast you left skid marks. All of the ID-Creationists did. You also ran from my list of ID questions.

    Ah, Thorton, always good for a laugh. I told you what the barrier was – I even gave you a 5-point list, and pointed out that Item 4 (“The Bomb”), the development of novel form and function, was the barrier that had defied all empirical validation, despite decades of labratory experimentation. At which point you demonstrated quite quickly and ably your complete lack of understanding of the term “empirical”, and attempted to present a gene-sequencing study as proof that gene-duplication adds form/function! Sorry, I don’t waste time on anyone who doesn’t understand the word “empirical”, and/or thinks just-so stories based on sequence similarities in a single species’ genetic code is “proof” of evolution.

    Did you grow a spine yet and will try some answers? Or will you just declare victory and run away again?

    I would respond to this in the manner it deserves, but I’d hate for Jagesh Nadu to pop his little head up again and accuse me of unChristian behavior. Suffice it to say that one does not waste time repeating oneself to one unwilling to learn (e.g. yourself and keith s). It’s like trying to teach a pig to dance – all it does is get you dirty and make the pig mad. (Jagesh – too far?)

    So, yes – I’m going to declare victory and move on. Enjoy.

    P.S. to keith s – I’ve read Theobald. Several times. He makes absolutely zero effort to establish that his trees of reference are either independent or objective. Which they are not. If vjt believes that the trees are, in fact, objective, then I would have to respectfully disagree with him on this point.

  82. 82
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Of course it’s not surprising since the current version of ID was formulated solely as a political tool to get the Christian religion reintroduced into public school science classes. That was made clear almost a decade ago in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

    I don’t see that argument as doing much. The ID inference extends back to the ancient Greeks and people who study ID soon recognize that. The “current version” may have had some political motives 10 years ago, but so what? Lots of Darwinists have an atheist-propaganda motive today.

    Many people in the scientific community see ID’s attempts to dumb down school science standards and bypass proper scientific processes as a real threat to the technological leadership of the U.S.

    I think it’s easier to say that many in the scientific community oppose ID for whatever reasons. It’s a “marketplace of ideas” in a democratic process. If ID is a threat, then Darwinian-science just needs to convince the public of that. Banning ID conferences doesn’t seem like the best approach towards that goal.

    That’s why we fight against the lies and chicanery. Believe in whatever Designer God you want but don’t try to fool anyone into thinking it’s science and don’t try to sneak it into schools.

    Sure, offer counter-points to ideas you don’t like. Ant-ID voices have had 10 or more years to convince the public that they’re being “fooled”. I don’t think references to Kitzmiller v. Dover – which is an argument from authority – is really much of a winning position. We see quite frequently that the case for evolution has been overstated many times and significant problems in evolutionary claims are often covered-up. So, speaking about “lies” … some open and honest evaluation of evolutionary claims would be helpful on the Darwinist side of the debate, in my opinion.

  83. 83

    Thornton said:

    The real difference is that keiths knows and understands the science being discussed.

    There is no science being discussed in keiths’ original argument (“bomb”). He simply assumes natural forces capable of generating life and evolutionary processes and the evolutionary pattern we observe.

    Keiths attempts to make a logical argument involving the principle of parsimony as decider of which hypothesis is the better explanation, after assuming all of the science.

    I don’t claim to be a scientist, but even a child can see the gaping flaws in keiths’ logic. It’s a pity you either cannot, or will not, just for the sake of maintaining your ideology.

  84. 84

    This is the level of debate after the riff-raff are let back in; they think Intelligent Design only goes back to the Dover trail. They are utterly oblivious to thousands of years of debate on the subject, and centuries of scientists opining about unguided OOL & evolution vs created/guided.

  85. 85
    Axel says:

    ‘Philosophy and religion have to be careful to not make the mistake of trying to solve the mysteries in nature by making God “responsible for a natural process that escapes scientific explanation,” Vicuna said.

    An example of this, he said, can be found in the intelligent design movement, which accepts that life has evolved over eons but asserts that it is so complex that its development must have been guided by a supreme being or intelligent agent.

    Not only are intelligent-design proponents “denying nature’s autonomy, but they are also revealing some degree of ingenuousness, because science has already provided explanations for the development” of structures they had considered to be too complex to occur naturally, he said.

    However, there is an argument for the “apparent design, order and purpose observed in nature,” he said, which is not to be confused with intelligent design and it is the “God of the gaps.”‘

    … from this:

    http://www.catholicnews.com/da.....404445.htm

    I wonder if you chaps could analyze and destroy this chap’s evident burblings.

  86. 86
    PaV says:

    One of the basic arguments central to Meyer’s Darwin’s Dilemna was that the “nested hierarchies” are not V-shaped, but in an inverted V-shape, counter to Darwinian expectations.

    There was a study recently reported on where the researchers found this same pattern, and called it an ‘inverted-V-shape’, or something similar. IOW, there is an “explosion”–you know, like the “Cambrian Explosion,” followed by a winnowing away of diversity. Yes, the morpologies change some with time, but then remain static, but there is NOT a “build-up” of diversity, but a LOSS. Sounds just like Behe’s rule of adaptation, doesn’t it.

    This just completely undermines keith’s “bomb,” though I’m relying on what was said in the OP for his argument.

  87. 87
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    You ran away from my question about “what barrier prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones?” so fast you left skid marks. All of the ID-Creationists did. You also ran from my list of ID questions.

    I’m not privy to your entire conversation with drc, but the answer to your question is obvious: the “barrier” to micro-evolutionary changes accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones is simple: lack of viability.

    Cats and dogs can be pushed only so far, then they become sickly. Nonsense about NS being able to do things that AS cannot is belied by the fact that humans are always bringing about things in the lab or in the field that “nature” has not. Did “nature” turn a wolf into a dog? Simple question. Simple answer. But simpletons stumble over such things.

    Does “nature” contradict what I’m saying? No! Read my previous post.

  88. 88
    velikovskys says:

    Wjm,

    And there you have the difference between keiths and I; I admit it when my premises stem from what I have chosen to believe

    It is yet to be proven that Keith’s assumptions have no evidentiary basis, we do know your premises require none.

    I don’t try to characterize them as “fair” premises that should be used by others to arrive at any supposedly objectively valid conclusion.

    Are you willing to enforce them if necessary to be a good person ?

  89. 89
    Joe says:

    vel:

    It is yet to be proven that Keith’s assumptions have no evidentiary basis,

    Yes, it has.

  90. 90
    Axel says:

    ‘riff-raff’ and ‘Simple question. Simple answer. But simpletons stumble over such things.’ And not even from Joe, the Enforcer’, but respectively from the urbane WJM and PaV! Wonderful stuff.

    The journey down this comedic Memory Lane has been worth it, just to read the withering comments from our side!

  91. 91
    Thorton says:

    PaV

    I’m not privy to your entire conversation with drc, but the answer to your question is obvious: the “barrier” to micro-evolutionary changes accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones is simple: lack of viability.

    Cats and dogs can be pushed only so far, then they become sickly. Nonsense about NS being able to do things that AS cannot is belied by the fact that humans are always bringing about things in the lab or in the field that “nature” has not. Did “nature” turn a wolf into a dog? Simple question. Simple answer. But simpletons stumble over such things

    PaV your pitiful ignorance is showing again. Artificial selection is only done with a very small subset of a population over a very short time frame and with only sexual selection in that very small subset providing virtually all of the genotype variation. Evolution has the entire population of animals to work with over much longer time frames – tens of thousands of generations. It also has the new genetic variations that are introduced which don’t come from sexual mixing but are introduced in imperfect copying. That means there is a great amount more variation to be selected from.

    So no, your “barrier” is nothing more than the same discredited argument “we don’t see it in real time”. Same ignorance, different simpleton.

  92. 92
    velikovskys says:

    Sa:
    I don’t see that argument as doing much. The ID inference extends back to the ancient Greeks and people who study ID soon recognize that.

    Unless the inference was limited to biology, that ID inference has been discarded for much of the material world.

    The “current version” may have had some political motives 10 years ago,

    It seems likely that religious motivations were behind the school board’s decision.

    but so what?

    It is illegal.

    Lots of Darwinists have an atheist-propaganda motive today.

    Probably but many including the Catholic Church are theists.

    I think it’s easier to say that many in the scientific community oppose ID for whatever reasons

    Sure it is easier but it is less accurate. All reasons are not equal

    It’s a “marketplace of ideas” in a democratic process. If ID is a threat, then Darwinian-science just needs to convince the public of that

    Science is a meritocracy, all ideas are not equally supported by the evidence. The sun does not revolve around the earth no matter what number of the public believes it does.

    Banning ID conferences doesn’t seem like the best approach towards that goal.

    I agree, but I doubt many skeptics of ID will be invited to speak at the conference.

  93. 93
    Joe says:

    LoL! thorton thinks that throwing father time at the problem actually helps and is a scientific position.

    1- There aren’t any known microevolutionary events that can be extrapolated into macro

    AND

    2- Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.– John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

    thorton the ignorant just ignores that as if its ignorance is a refutation.

  94. 94
    velikovskys says:

    Joe:
    Yes, it has.

    How does one compute the probability of a specific designer?

  95. 95
    Joe says:

    vel:

    Unless the inference was limited to biology, that ID inference has been discarded for much of the material world.

    Why? Not for evidentiary reasons. “The Privileged Planet” makes a strong case for the design inference extending beyond biology. And materialism’s only answer is “There wasn’t any plan it just happened, man”.

  96. 96
    Joe says:

    vel:

    How does one compute the probability of a specific designer?

    Perhaps the same way we compute the probability of a designer for Stonehenge.

  97. 97
    logically_speaking says:

    Two school boys arguing,

    1. “My dad can beat up your dad”!

    2. “Really, my dad is taller, stronger and faster than your dad. Not only that, but your dad has no legs so is confined to a wheelchair, only has one arm and is blind”.

    1. “Oh shut up, you’re an idiot, my dad can still beat up your dad regardless. Besides I don’t actually believe your dad exists anyway”!

    2. “Obviously there is no reasoning with you, goodbye”.

    1. “I win coward, you run away because you know I’m right. You couldn’t even give any reasons for why your dad would win in the fight, or any reasons for why my dad would lose”!

    The 1st boys dad turns to the 2nd boys dad and says,

    “Could you please push me over to my son, so that I can clip him over the head for being so foolish”.

  98. 98
    Box says:

    Fellow Darwinists on this thread show little support for Keith’s “bomb”. I have noticed just two frail attempts to back up their brother in arms:

    Thorton #75: The real difference is that keiths knows and understands the science being discussed.

    velikovskys #88: It is yet to be proven that Keith’s assumptions have no evidentiary basis, (…)

    I suggest both gentlemen take a close look at Keith’s premise 3:

    Premise 3: A designer explains ONH, but also a trillion of alternatives.

    Now please inform us how these facts are derived from scientific research.

  99. 99
    Collin says:

    Joe, thanks for explaning nested hierarchies in terms of the military. That analogy cleared it up for me (although I’m sure keiths and thornton ignored it).

    Keiths,

    In your comments about nested hierarchies you claimed that they are objective based on genetics and morphology. If objective reasonable people agreed on one genetic NH but objective reasonable people agreed on a substantially different NH morphologically, would you say that presents a challenge to unguided evolution?

  100. 100
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    Perhaps the same way we compute the probability of a designer for Stonehenge

    Show us your CSI calculations for Stonehenge then. Show us your probability calculations and the probability space that lets you conclude “design” from the objects alone.

  101. 101
    bornagain77 says:

    as to Thorton quoting PaV at 91:

    the “barrier” to micro-evolutionary changes accumulating over time into macroevolutionary ones is simple: lack of viability.
    Cats and dogs can be pushed only so far, then they become sickly.

    Although the sheer inability of unguided Darwinian processes to generate function information is certainly a very real, insurmountable, barrier to the notion of one kind of species evolving into another kind of species,,,,

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), ‘If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’ Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It’s a mirage. None of it happens that way.
    – Doug Axe PhD. – Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/

    Stephen Meyer (and Doug Axe) Critiques Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” Illustration – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

    ,,,And although the same type of insurmountable barrier is also found for transforming any existing protein into a new protein with a new function.,,,

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....nt-collide

    “Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution’s (non) Ability to Produce New (Protein) Functions ” – video
    Quote: It turns out once you get above the number six [changes in amino acids] — and even at lower numbers actually — but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....5_14-07_00

    ,,,and even though the information depletion accompanying sub-speciation, also certainly indicates a insurmountable barrier to the unlimited plasticity envisioned by Darwinists,,,

    “…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 – Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk

    From a Frog to a Prince – video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) – No Beneficial Mutations – Gitt – Spetner – Denton – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031

    “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.-

    A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html

    “A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,’.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.’ The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man ” ‘ . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!” —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.]
    http://www.godrules.net/evolut.....vlch15.htm

    ,,,Although all of the preceding evidence certainly indictates a insurmoutable barrier of one kind of species evolving into another kind of species, (as is envisioned in Darwinism), there are a couple more principles that we can point out that also indicate a insurmountable barrier to the unlimited plasticity that is imagined by Darwinists.,,,
    ,,,One barrier, that has recently come to light with advances in molecular biology which have revealed overlapping coding in DNA sequences, is what is termed, by John Sanford, poly-functional complexity equals poly-constrained complexity. The math for poly-constrained complexity was worked out here,,

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].
    Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

  102. 102
    bornagain77 says:

    Trifonov elucidates 4 overlapping codes in this following video:

    Second, third, fourth… genetic codes – One spectacular case of code crowding – Edward N. Trifonov – video
    https://vimeo.com/81930637

    In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, “Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!”.
    ,,, To clearly envision the severe ‘poly-constraint’ that 4 overlapping codes would present to any neo-Darwinian processes, this following illustration, found on page 141 of the book Genetic Entropy by Dr. Sanford, is extremely helpful.

    S A T O R
    A R E P O
    T E N E T
    O P E R A
    R O T A S

    Sator Square
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sator_Square

    Which is translated ;

    THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

    This ancient puzzle, which dates back to at least 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center).
    This is what is meant when it is said a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations.

    And although that is certainly a very tight constraint at the molecular level for neo-Darwinian processes, at the body plan, i.e. morphological, level we find another tight constraint for the unlimited plasticity envisioned by Darwinists.
    A simple way of illustrating these ‘morphological’ constraints for the plasticity of basic body plans is by envisioning what would happen if you were to have a series of mutations which enlarged, say, a leg bone of a animal. If a corresponding series of mutations did not happen for the muscles, blood vessels , nerves, skin, and etc.. etc.., of the leg,,, as well as for the other legs, the animal would soon lose its symmetry. Here are a few articles which elucidate this principle,,,

    “The real number of variations is lesser than expected,,. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. …However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability… [If you have the time, read all of the following paper, which concludes] The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism.” (IGOR POPOV, THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT, 2009,
    http://www.ludusvitalis.org/te....._popov.pdf

    K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems – June 11, 2010
    Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of (embryonic) development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream” (1)
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....l-systems/

    Newton himself considered this ‘symmetry argument’ for body plans devastating against atheistic arguments,,,

    “Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped, (except in their bowels,) and just two eyes, and no more, on either side of the face; and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes; and either two fore- legs, or two wings, or two arms on the shoulders, and two legs on the hips, and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivances of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom, and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin, and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle, and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light, and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures, after the most curious manner, to make use of it? These, and suchlike considerations, always have, and ever will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.” (Sir Isaac Newton, A Short Scheme of the True Religion)
    Sir Isaac Newton – Of Atheism – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAMCgWV3PVI

    Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour – interactive image
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....iatour.jpg

    supplemental notes: mutations that could effect body plan morphogenisis are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’

    A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
    Eric Davidson
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79811.html

    Darwin or Design? – Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church – Nov. 2012 – ontogenetic depth (excellent update) – video
    Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
    1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
    2. Thus, to change — that is, to evolve — any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
    3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.
    Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.
    http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

  103. 103
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    Where do dogs come from? Nature, or human breeding? What’s your answer?

    It’s really simple. But you seem to choose to be willfully blind. I have no remedy for that.

  104. 104
    rich says:

    I’m very interested in the Stonehenge example. Would someone be so kind as to start a post on it?

    Many thanks!

  105. 105
    Thorton says:

    PaV

    One of the basic arguments central to Meyer’s Darwin’s Dilemna was that the “nested hierarchies” are not V-shaped, but in an inverted V-shape, counter to Darwinian expectations.

    Speaking of Meyer’s Darwin’s Dilemma can anyone give me the official ID position?

    Meyer says at the beginning of the Cambrian period about 540 MYA the Designer shows up. Then it takes him 10-20 million years to design two dozen or so new body plans. Then the Designer disappears.

    1. What is the ID explanation for the 3+ billion years of life on Earth before the Cambrian, including the 100 million years of multicellular life?

    2. What is the ID explanation for the 500 MYA of life after the Cambrian, including the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event? Did the Designer’s original creations macroevolve?

    3. What is the ID explanation for the re-radiation of life after each of the five known mass extinction events in Earth’s history?

    You guys are always grousing that ToE doesn’t provide detailed mutational steps for proteins that formed a billion years ago but can’t answer the simplest questions about ID, like what is the ID timeline.

    Let’s see something concrete this time.

  106. 106
    Thorton says:

    PaV

    Where do dogs come from? Nature, or human breeding? What’s your answer?

    It’s really simple. But you seem to choose to be willfully blind. I have no remedy for that.

    Here you go PaV, a cure for your ignorance

    Phylogenetic relationships, evolution, and genetic diversity of the domestic dog
    Vila et al
    Oxford Journal of Heredity, 90 (1): 71-77. 1999

    Abstract: The spectacular diversity in size, conformation, and pelage that characterizes the domestic dog reflects not only the intensity of artificial selection but ultimately the genetic variability of founding populations. Here we review past molecular genetic data that are relevant to understanding the origin and phylogenetic relationships of the dog. DNA-DNA hybridization data show that the dog family Canidae diverged about 50 million years ago from other carnivore families. In contrast, the extant canids are very closely related and diverged from a common ancestor about 10 million years ago. The evidence supporting a close relationship of dogs with gray wolves is overwhelming. However, dogs are remarkably diverse in mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Mitochondrial DNA analysis suggests a more ancient origin of dogs than has been indicated by the fossil record. In addition, dogs have originated from or interbred with wolves throughout their history at different times and different places. We test the possibility of an independent domestication event in North America by analysis of mtDNA variation in the Xoloitzcuintli. This unusual breed is believed to have been kept isolated for thousands of years and may be one of the most ancient breeds in North America. Our results do not support a New World domestication of dogs nor a close association of the Xoloitzcuintli with other hairless breeds of dogs. Despite their phenotypic uniformity, the Xoloitzcuintli has a surprisingly high level of mtDNA sequence variation. Other breeds are also genetically diverse, suggesting that dog breeds were often founded with a large number of dogs from outbred populations

    Unless to choose to remain in your current state of willful ignorance. I can’t help you with that.

  107. 107
    bornagain77 says:

    1999? Perhaps you should update your notes Thorton?

    Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of Dogs – January 2014
    Excerpt Discussion: We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations (Figures 4–5, Table S10),,
    Our analysis suggests that none of the sampled wolf populations is more closely related to dogs than any of the others, and that dogs diverged from wolves at about the same time that the sampled wolf populations diverged from each other (Figures 5A, 5C).
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.1004016

    What Darwin Didnt Know – video (21 minute mark,,, jackals, wolves, and huskies interbred by Russians to be drug sniffing dogs)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1fdJJCQOPk
    Seminar by Dr. Robert Carter
    September 18, 2014
    Cedar Park Christian School – Mountlake Terrace, WA.

    Caveman’s Best Friend, Evolution’s Newest Upset – October 2011
    Excerpt: Our view of domestication as a process has also begun to change, with recent research showing that, in dogs, alterations in only a small number of genes can have large effects in terms of size, shape and behavior.,,, It should be noted that dogs and wolves can interbreed,,,
    http://crev.info/content/20111.....est_friend

    Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – Mar 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record.
    http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/.....rd-lonnig/

    podcast – On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_14-08_00
    Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution?
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_07-08_00

  108. 108
    keith s says:

    Collin:

    Joe, thanks for explaning nested hierarchies in terms of the military. That analogy cleared it up for me (although I’m sure keiths and thornton ignored it).

    Collin,

    If you’re depending on Joe for ammunition, you are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. Joe has been struggling to understand nested hierarchies for years. Literally.

    Look at Joe’s argument:

    To achieve summativity the criteria “consist of and contain” must be met. NOTE- A parent population does NOT consist of nor contain it’s daughter populations. That is why any tree of life is not a nested hierarchy.

    What Joe fails to notice, predictably, is that Theobald’s nested hierarchies do not contain parent populations.

    Look at Theobald’s Figure 2. It’s a nested hierarchy showing the evolutionary relationships among fly, mouse, and human. The only organisms listed are fly, mouse, and human. The parent populations are not included, so Joe’s objection falls flat.

    It’s easy to see why. You can express the nested hierarchy of Figure 2 using a very compact notation:

    {fly, {mouse, human}}

    No parent populations are mentioned.

    Now look at Figure 1 again. It’s just like Figure 2. Parent populations are not included, and the whole thing could be expressed on a single line using the same nested notation I employed above. (The blue and red dots are not part of the hierarchy; they are just notes. They can be removed and the hierarchy remains.)

    Theobald’s hierarchies are perfectly fine. Joe’s criticism is bogus.

    In your comments about nested hierarchies you claimed that they are objective based on genetics and morphology. If objective reasonable people agreed on one genetic NH but objective reasonable people agreed on a substantially different NH morphologically, would you say that presents a challenge to unguided evolution?

    I think I know where you’re trying to go with this. Read this section of Theobald and then get back to me if you still have questions.

  109. 109
    keith s says:

    Box,

    I suggest both gentlemen take a close look at Keith’s premise 3:

    Premise 3: A designer explains ONH, but also a trillion of alternatives.

    That’s your premise 3, not mine.

    I think a better way of putting it is to say the unguided evolution predicts the ONH, but ID does not.

  110. 110
    keith s says:

    drc466:

    P.S. to keith s – I’ve read Theobald. Several times. He makes absolutely zero effort to establish that his trees of reference are either independent or objective.

    You’ve read Theobald “several times”, and yet you somehow managed to miss this:

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

    And this:

    The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of “cladistic hierarchical structure” (also known as the “phylogenetic signal”) in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).

    And this:

    Therefore, since common descent is a genealogical process, common descent should produce organisms that can be organized into objective nested hierarchies.

    Now look at your statement again:

    P.S. to keith s – I’ve read Theobald. Several times. He makes absolutely zero effort to establish that his trees of reference are either independent or objective.

  111. 111
    keith s says:

    William:

    keiths, paraphrased: “If we assume everything that is necessary to reach my conclusion, and ignore everything that would falsify it, my conclusion is valid.”

    If that’s a paraphrase, then Naked Lunch is a paraphrase of War and Peace.

    I’ve already shown that my argument treats ID and unguided evolution equally:

    Let me also repost this, to counteract a mistake that Box and William keep making:

    Box,

    A final word on the matter.

    I wish it were, but I have this sinking feeling that you’ll keep repeating the same mistakes.

    It has been explained to you again in post #1116, that one cannot construct an argument with a premise, which assumes the capability of natural forces, that ID can win. IOW such a premise is unacceptable for ID.

    Repeat your mistake as many times as you like. It’s still a mistake, and I’ve already explained why.

    You want to give ID an unfair advantage. I want to treat ID and unguided evolution equally, to see which one prevails on a level playing field.

    Of course that is “unacceptable” to you, because ID loses on a level playing field, and you don’t like that. You want to rig the game so that ID will win despite being an inferior hypothesis.

    That is unacceptable to any honest, science-minded person.

    Let me try once more to explain this to you.

    1. “Unguided evolution produced the ONH” is a hypothesis. It might be true; it might be false. If it’s true, then unguided evolution must exist, and it must have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH. If it’s false, then either unguided evolution doesn’t exist (or was prevented from operating), or else it doesn’t have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH.

    2. “A designer produced the ONH” is a hypothesis. It might be true; it might be false. If it’s true, then a designer must exist, and it must have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH. If it’s false, then either the designer doesn’t exist (or was prevented from operating), or else it doesn’t have the capabilities needed to produce the ONH.

    3. We know that unguided evolution exists. Even the most rabid IDer/YEC will admit that antibiotic resistance can evolve, though there are people who actually believe that natural selection is a tautology, including UD President Barry Arrington, believe it or not.

    4. We don’t know that the putative designer exists, so ID is already behind in the race.

    5. We cannot prove that unguided evolution could accomplish every single step required to produce the ONH. That would require not only that we know every single step, which is impoosible — it would also require us to know unguided evolution’s capabilities well enough to decide if each step was within its reach.

    6. We cannot prove that the designer could accomplish every single step required to produce the ONH. That would require not only that we know every single step, which is impoosible — it would also require us to know the designer’s capabilities well enough to decide if each step was within its reach.

    7. If we assume that the ONH is out of unguided evolution’s reach, then of course unguided evolution cannot explain the ONH.

    8. If we assume that the ONH is out of the designer’s reach, then of course ID cannot explain the ONH.

    9. If we took that attitude, then we’d have to rule out both ID and unguided evolution! That would be a ridiculous conclusion, because one of them might actually be the correct explanation.

    10. Are we stuck? Of course not. Instead of assuming that they don’t work, we can assume that they do. Then we can see if one of them fits the evidence better than the other.

    11. If we take that approach and assume, temporarily and for the sake of argument alone, that unguided evolution is responsible for the diversity of life, we can see that unguided evolution predicts an objective nested hierarchy out of the trillions of possibilities.

    12. If we take that approach and assume, temporarily and for the sake of argument alone, that the designer is responsible for the diversity of life, we can see that ID does does not predict an objective nested hierarchy out of the trillions of possibilities.

    We have treated ID and unguided evolution exactly the same, and evaluated them on a level playing field. If we assume that neither works, then of course neither can explain the ONH. If we assume that they do work, then unguided evolution makes a spectacularly successful, one in trillions prediction: the existence of the ONH. Meanwhile, ID falls flat on its face. None of the possibilities are ruled out, so under an ID hypothesis, we would expect with 99.999… % probability to find that there was not an objective nested hierarchy.

    If you treat them equally, unguided evolution blows ID out of the water. It isn’t even close.

    ID is a profoundly irrational position.

    I’m not sure I can make this any more obvious, Box. If you still don’t get it, I’m afraid it may be out of your reach.

  112. 112
    Silver Asiatic says:

    velikovskys #92

    Unless the inference was limited to biology, that ID inference has been discarded for much of the material world.

    The ID inference is accepted on a very widespread basis – as Joe mentioned, certainly with fine-tuning arguments on the cosmological level. The point here though is that a reference to D vs K doesn’t say much.

    It is illegal.

    With a change in the legal opinion/decision it could be rendered legal once again so this also doesn’t say much.

    Probably but many including the Catholic Church are theists.

    There are atheists who accept the ID inference also.

    Science is a meritocracy, all ideas are not equally supported by the evidence. The sun does not revolve around the earth no matter what number of the public believes it does.

    Again, ID is supposedly a ‘threat’ to the organizations who establish science standards for education.

    I agree, but I doubt many skeptics of ID will be invited to speak at the conference.</blockquote.

    Some have already spoken about the conference – which is one of the benefits of having it on campus. There are usually Q&A sessions where skeptics usually voice their opposition.

  113. 113
    bornagain77 says:

    “The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of “cladistic hierarchical structure””

    The ‘statistical tests’ used by Theobald are ‘worse than useless’

    Does Natural Selection Leave “Detectable Statistical Evidence in the Genome”? More Problems with Matzke’s Critique of Darwin’s Doubt – Casey Luskin August 7, 2013
    Excerpt: A critical review of these statistical methods has shown that their theoretical foundation is not well established and they often give false-positive and false-negative results.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75171.html

    Keith s denied that Theobald had used Fisher’s ‘statistical significance’ to establish his ahem ‘proof’, but when I looked behold, fisher is cited twice by Theobald,,

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution – Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
    Part 1: – The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree – Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species
    Excerpt: Seventy-five independent studies from different researchers, on different organisms and genes, with high values of CI (P less than 0.01) is an incredible confirmation with an astronomical degree of combined statistical significance (P less than less than 10-300, Bailey and Gribskov 1998; Fisher 1990).
    per Talk Origins
    under ‘Potential Falsification’ section:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq....._hierarchy
    “How close must the measurements be in order to give a strong confirmation?” Scientists answer these questions quantitatively with probability and statistics (Box 1978; Fisher 1990; Wadsworth 1997). To be scientifically rigorous we require statistical significance. Some measurements of a given value match with statistical significance (good), and some do not (bad), even though no measurements match exactly (reality)
    So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102).,,,
    under ‘Confirmation’ section
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....onvergence

    The following site gives an overview of the many problems of the method that Theobald used to try to establish ‘statistical significance’ for common ancestry;:

    Scientific method: Statistical errors – P values, the ‘gold standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. – Regina Nuzzo – 12 February 2014
    Excerpt: “P values are not doing their job, because they can’t,” says Stephen Ziliak, an economist at Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois, and a frequent critic of the way statistics are used.,,,
    “Change your statistical philosophy and all of a sudden different things become important,” says Steven Goodman, a physician and statistician at Stanford. “Then ‘laws’ handed down from God are no longer handed down from God. They’re actually handed down to us by ourselves, through the methodology we adopt.”,,
    One researcher suggested rechristening the methodology “statistical hypothesis inference testing”3, presumably for the acronym it would yield.,,
    The irony is that when UK statistician Ronald Fisher introduced the P value in the 1920s, he did not mean it to be a definitive test. He intended it simply as an informal way to judge whether evidence was significant in the old-fashioned sense: worthy of a second look. The idea was to run an experiment, then see if the results were consistent with what random chance might produce.,,,
    Neyman called some of Fisher’s work mathematically “worse than useless”,,,
    “The P value was never meant to be used the way it’s used today,” says Goodman.,,,
    The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is.,,,
    “It is almost impossible to drag authors away from their p-values, and the more zeroes after the decimal point, the harder people cling to them”11,,
    http://www.nature.com/news/sci.....E-20140213

    This certainly does not warrant the overconfident certainty that keith s displays in Darwinism,,,

    of related note:

    p-value
    In statistical significance testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.[1][2] A researcher will often “reject the null hypothesis” when the p-value turns out to be less than a predetermined significance level, often 0.05[3][4] or 0.01. Such a result indicates that the observed result would be highly unlikely under the null hypothesis.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

    Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis – Casey Luskin November 29, 2010
    Excerpt: National Geographic notes in a subheadline: “Creationism called ‘absolutely horrible hypothesis’ — statistically speaking.” The problem is that Theobald didn’t test universal common ancestry against “creationism.” He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good.
    Again, if you don’t believe me, consider what reviewers of a critique of Theobald’s paper had to say (approving the critique!):
    Cogniscenti cringed when they saw the Theobald paper, knowing that “it is trivial”. It is trivial because the straw man that Theobald attacks in a text largely formulated in convoluted legalese, is that significant sequence similarity might arise by chance as opposed to descent with modification.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41021.html

    Even Eugene Koonin, an evolutionist, said Theobald’s work was wrong

    Eugene Koonin: The Pot Calls the Kettle Black – November 2010
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....black.html

    Douglas Theobald’s Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design – December 1, 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41071.html

    But Isn’t There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent? – Casey Luskin – December 2, 2010
    Excerpt: Dr. Theobald might have had a point, were it not for the fact that:
    (1) Phylogeny and biogeography don’t always agree.
    (2) Phylogeny and paleontology don’t always agree.
    (3) Transitional fossils are often missing (or the “predicted” transitional fossils fall apart on closer inspection). (4) Hierarchical classifications often fail.
    (5) “Homologous” structures often have different developmental pathways or different structures often have “homologous” developmental pathways.
    (6) Morphological and molecular phylogenies are often incongruent.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41111.html

    Let the Worship Begin – Cornelius Hunter – May 2010
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-354685

    Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – February 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” that “well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance.”
    In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other.
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt – (pp. 122-123)
    ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren’t distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that’s used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor.
    If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81981.html
    etc.. etc..,, keith s claim is all bluff and bluster!

  114. 114
    bornagain77 says:

    “The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of “cladistic hierarchical structure””

    The ‘statistical tests’ used by Theobald are ‘worse than useless’

    Does Natural Selection Leave “Detectable Statistical Evidence in the Genome”? More Problems with Matzke’s Critique of Darwin’s Doubt – Casey Luskin August 7, 2013
    Excerpt: A critical review of these statistical methods has shown that their theoretical foundation is not well established and they often give false-positive and false-negative results.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75171.html

    Keith s denied that Theobald had used Fisher’s ‘statistical significance’ to establish his ahem ‘proof’, but when I looked behold, fisher is cited twice by Theobald,,

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution – Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
    Part 1: – The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree – Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species
    Excerpt: Seventy-five independent studies from different researchers, on different organisms and genes, with high values of CI (P less than 0.01) is an incredible confirmation with an astronomical degree of combined statistical significance (P less than less than 10-300, Bailey and Gribskov 1998; Fisher 1990).
    per Talk Origins
    under ‘Potential Falsification’ section:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq....._hierarchy
    “How close must the measurements be in order to give a strong confirmation?” Scientists answer these questions quantitatively with probability and statistics (Box 1978; Fisher 1990; Wadsworth 1997). To be scientifically rigorous we require statistical significance. Some measurements of a given value match with statistical significance (good), and some do not (bad), even though no measurements match exactly (reality)
    So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102).,,,
    under ‘Confirmation’ section
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....onvergence

    The following site gives an overview of the many problems of the method that Theobald used to try to establish ‘statistical significance’ for common ancestry;:

    Scientific method: Statistical errors – P values, the ‘gold standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. – Regina Nuzzo – 12 February 2014
    Excerpt: “P values are not doing their job, because they can’t,” says Stephen Ziliak, an economist at Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois, and a frequent critic of the way statistics are used.,,,
    “Change your statistical philosophy and all of a sudden different things become important,” says Steven Goodman, a physician and statistician at Stanford. “Then ‘laws’ handed down from God are no longer handed down from God. They’re actually handed down to us by ourselves, through the methodology we adopt.”,,
    One researcher suggested rechristening the methodology “statistical hypothesis inference testing”3, presumably for the acronym it would yield.,,
    The irony is that when UK statistician Ronald Fisher introduced the P value in the 1920s, he did not mean it to be a definitive test. He intended it simply as an informal way to judge whether evidence was significant in the old-fashioned sense: worthy of a second look. The idea was to run an experiment, then see if the results were consistent with what random chance might produce.,,,
    Neyman called some of Fisher’s work mathematically “worse than useless”,,,
    “The P value was never meant to be used the way it’s used today,” says Goodman.,,,
    The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is.,,,
    “It is almost impossible to drag authors away from their p-values, and the more zeroes after the decimal point, the harder people cling to them”11,,
    http://www.nature.com/news/sci.....E-20140213

    This certainly does not warrant the overconfident certainty that keith s displays in Darwinism,,,

  115. 115
    bornagain77 says:

    of related note:

    p-value
    In statistical significance testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.[1][2] A researcher will often “reject the null hypothesis” when the p-value turns out to be less than a predetermined significance level, often 0.05[3][4] or 0.01. Such a result indicates that the observed result would be highly unlikely under the null hypothesis.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

    Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis – Casey Luskin November 29, 2010
    Excerpt: National Geographic notes in a subheadline: “Creationism called ‘absolutely horrible hypothesis’ — statistically speaking.” The problem is that Theobald didn’t test universal common ancestry against “creationism.” He tested universal common ancestry against the impossibly unlikely hypothesis that these genes independently arrived at highly similar sequences via blind, unguided convergent evolution. Given his outlandish null hypothesis, no wonder common descent came out looking so good.
    Again, if you don’t believe me, consider what reviewers of a critique of Theobald’s paper had to say (approving the critique!):
    Cogniscenti cringed when they saw the Theobald paper, knowing that “it is trivial”. It is trivial because the straw man that Theobald attacks in a text largely formulated in convoluted legalese, is that significant sequence similarity might arise by chance as opposed to descent with modification.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41021.html

    Even Eugene Koonin, an evolutionist, said Theobald’s work was wrong

    Eugene Koonin: The Pot Calls the Kettle Black – November 2010
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....black.html

    Douglas Theobald’s Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design – December 1, 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41071.html

    But Isn’t There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent? – Casey Luskin – December 2, 2010
    Excerpt: Dr. Theobald might have had a point, were it not for the fact that:
    (1) Phylogeny and biogeography don’t always agree.
    (2) Phylogeny and paleontology don’t always agree.
    (3) Transitional fossils are often missing (or the “predicted” transitional fossils fall apart on closer inspection). (4) Hierarchical classifications often fail.
    (5) “Homologous” structures often have different developmental pathways or different structures often have “homologous” developmental pathways.
    (6) Morphological and molecular phylogenies are often incongruent.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41111.html

    Let the Worship Begin – Cornelius Hunter – May 2010
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-354685

    Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – February 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” that “well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance.”
    In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other.
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt – (pp. 122-123)
    ,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren’t distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that’s used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor.
    If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81981.html
    etc.. etc..,, keith s claim is all bluff and bluster!

  116. 116

    velikovskys said:

    It is yet to be proven that Keith’s assumptions have no evidentiary basis, we do know your premises require none.

    It doesn’t need to be proven. He asks us to accept his premises arguendo. As I said, his argument skips the science.

    The only premises I have in this argument are the ones keiths himself has stipulated.

    Are you willing to enforce them if necessary to be a good person ?

    Am I willing to enforce what – my premises? I don’t even know how I would go about doing that. I will enforce what I consider to be right where I consider it to be necessary in a manner I consider to be appropriate. However, this is all off-topic.

    The point here is that keiths argument isn’t science-based because it assumes the science. It’s logic based. That’s not a complaint, just a correction/observation about the nature of his argument.

  117. 117
    Joe says:

    Figure 2 is not a nested hierarchy as the nodes are ancestors.

    I have always supported my claims with valid references- always. Even Darwin agrees with me. keith s won’t even address the issue of transitional forms that would force an overlap in sets and ruin any objective nested hierarchy. Again Denton (1985) goes over this.

    You don’t have to listen to me. Just read “On the Origins of Species…” and “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”. I have also referenced two other sources that support my claims.

    Theobald:

    The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

    Yet the US Army is a nested hierarchy. Also given the fact that gradual evolution predicts numerous transitional forms any attempt at a unique nested hierarchy would be impossible. Even Darwin knew this.

    Theobald:

    As a specific example (see Figure 1), plants can be classified as vascular and nonvascular (i.e. they have or lack xylem and phloem). Nested within the vascular group, there are two divisions, seed and non-seed plants. Further nested within the seed plants are two more groups, the angiosperms (which have enclosed, protected seeds) and the gymnosperms (having non-enclosed seeds). Within the angiosperm group are the monocotyledons and the dicotyledons.

    Great but figure 1 doesn’t have anything to do with Common Descent! Linnean classification doesn’t have anything to do with Common Descent.

    Theobald:

    It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings.

    And that is why transitional forms would ruin an objective nested hierarchy. Once you have reptiles and mammals as different nesting groups you don’t have any place to put the mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals.

  118. 118
    keith s says:

    ba77,

    Let’s hear you explain, in your own words, the criticism of p-values.

    Then you can explain, in your own words, why it invalidates my argument. (Hint: It doesn’t.)

  119. 119
    Joe says:

    Timmy:

    Show us your CSI calculations for Stonehenge then.

    Why? CSI isn’t the only design detection tool. How many times do you have to be told this?

    Timmy Horton uses a hammer for a drill cuz it’s the only tool he knows how to use.

  120. 120
    keith s says:

    Joe:

    Even Darwin agrees with me.

    LOL. I wish we had signatures here. That’s a keeper.

  121. 121
    Joe says:

    keith s- You are challenged to write a program that shows unguided evolution producing objective nested hierarchies.

    We all know that you won’t but it will be entertaining watching you try to weasel out of it.

    Also how can unguided evolution explain anything seeing that it can’t get beyond the starting point of populations of prokaryotes? Please do tell.

  122. 122
    Joe says:

    keith s- Ignorant of Darwin, too:

    Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.– Charles Darwin chapter 14

  123. 123
    Joe says:

    for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished,

    That means unguided evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. The present groupings are an alleged artifact of extinctions.

  124. 124
    Joe says:

    Darwin’s quote would be a good signature, eh keith s? 😛

  125. 125
    keith s says:

    I usually ignore Joe, but holy crap this is funny.

    He quotes Darwin:

    Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.– Charles Darwin chapter 14

    Then he realizes his mistake, and truncates the quote…

    for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished,

    …because the final words torpedo his claim:

    still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.

    Keep shooting that foot, Joe!

    Okay, now back to ignoring you.

  126. 126
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    Do you think at all?

    Here’s the very first sentence of your 15-year-old “take-down” of my position that artificial selection, that is, ‘breeding,’ brought about something that NS could not is:

    The spectacular diversity in size, conformation, and pelage that characterizes the domestic dog reflects not only the intensity of artificial selection but ultimately the genetic variability of founding populations.

    From Wikipedia:

    The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris and sometimes referred to as Canis familiaris) began with the domestication of the wolf tens of thousands of years ago.[1][2][3] Genetic and archaeological evidence shows that humans domesticated wolves on more than one occasion, with the present lineage of C. l. familiaris arising at the latest 15,000 years ago as evidenced by the Bonn-Oberkassel site and possibly as early as 33,000 years ago as evidenced by the mtDNA testing on a paleolithic dog’s remains from the Razboinichya Cave (Altai Mountains).[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Some research indicates that dogs may have diverged over 100,000 years ago.

    You have ZERO credibility.

  127. 127
    Joe says:

    Holy crap keith s is a delusional psychopath. There wasn’t any mistake. I truncated it so you didn’t miss it. The final words don’t say anything about a nested hierarchy. A web is a natural arrangement. A linear progression is a natural arrangement. Just a mess of organisms is a natural arrangement.

    Geez keith s, are you really that dimwitted and desperate?

  128. 128
    Thorton says:

    Joe’s having a bad day. An own goal with the Darwin quote, then looks like a fool with his inability to produce any CSI or probability resource calculations for Stonehenge despite shooting his mouth off about them.

    Come to think of it, the chubby toaster repairman has had a bad couple of decades.

  129. 129
    Joe says:

    And thorton chimes in with his usual lies. Seeing that all you can do is lie, why even bother, timmy?

  130. 130
    Joe says:

    And thorton chimes in with his usual lies. Seeing that all you can do is lie, why even bother, timmy?

  131. 131
    Thorton says:

    PaV

    Do you think at all?

    Apparently more than you do willfully ignorant PaV:

    DNA-DNA hybridization data show that the dog family Canidae diverged about 50 million years ago from other carnivore families. In contrast, the extant canids are very closely related and diverged from a common ancestor about 10 million years ago.

    I know, those are all dog “kinds” that diverged once getting off the Ark, right?

    Stupidity as bad as your should be a felony or at least a misdemeanor.

    I notice you also ignored all the question on Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt claims. Must be tough for you going through life without a backbone.

  132. 132
    Joe says:

    thorton, your position can’t explain dogs. You can’t explain backbones. All it has are cowardly liars like you for support

  133. 133
    Thorton says:

    Poor chubby Joke made himself look like a fool. Own goal Darwin quote, no CSI or probability for Stonehenge. No answers on the Meyer ID timeline.

    Post a few more ‘tunie’ porno pics Chubs. They support the ID position as well as anything else you’ve provided.

  134. 134
    Joe says:

    What? In what way was the Darwin quote an own-goal? I dare you to make your case. What’s this whining about Stonehenge and probabilities? Are you saying that you are that you are too stupid to follow a discussion?

  135. 135
    Joe says:

    What about Meyer’s timeline? He was talking about evolutionism- you do realize that

  136. 136
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    DNA-DNA hybridization data show that the dog family Canidae diverged about 50 million years ago from other carnivore families. In contrast, the extant canids are very closely related and diverged from a common ancestor about 10 million years ago

    If you really cared to think things through, you would see that this statement (why don’t you give a reference?) only further supports my statement that AS can do much more than NS can. Apparently, NS had millions of years to bring about “domesticated” dogs, C. lupis, and yet did NOT. Humans, OTOH, did so in but thousands of years.

    You come off as an complete imbecile.

    As to the questions concerning ID and the evolution of life, these are clearly just ways for you to bluster more of your nonsense. Who has time for ridiculous questions, and especially from someone who won’t understand the answers.

    It’s just a matter of time before you’re banned from here. You waste everyone’s time, and nothing more.

  137. 137
    drc466 says:

    In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies (Pei 1949; Ringe 1999). Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese.

    …at some point it is going to occur to Theobald and Keith S that human languages are intelligently designed…

  138. 138
    Thorton says:

    PaV

    If you really cared to think things through, you would see that this statement (why don’t you give a reference?) only further supports my statement that AS can do much more than NS can.

    PaV you moron, you only brought up AS to supposedly support your claim that microevolutionary changes can’t amass over time into macroevolutionary ones due to “lack of viability”. Yet every piece of canidae genetic and fossil data we have shows the origin of the extant canids goes back to a common ancestor at least 10 million years ago. You have no magic barrier. You don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of the evidence being shown you.

    I can’t help it that you’re an ignorant fool who runs from all scientific data he can’t explain. All I can do is show you the evidence and watch you run.

    As to the questions concerning ID and the evolution of life, these are clearly just ways for you to bluster more of your nonsense. Who has time for ridiculous questions, and especially from someone who won’t understand the answers.

    ID has no answers to the questions. ID has no unified position on anything about ID since each IDiot makes it up as he goes. Yet another reason the scientific community doesn’t take you seriously.

  139. 139
    Collin says:

    Keiths, I think you missed my question @99. I said

    “In your comments about nested hierarchies you claimed that they are objective based on genetics and morphology. If objective reasonable people agreed on one genetic NH but objective reasonable people agreed on a substantially different NH morphologically, would you say that presents a challenge to unguided evolution?”

  140. 140
    Thorton says:

    drc466

    …at some point it is going to occur to Theobald and Keith S that human languages are intelligently designed…

    Really? Someone sat down one day and consciously designed the specifications and rules for English, Mandarin Chinese, and the Khoisan click languages?

    It’s amazing the things you learn from creationists.

  141. 141
    Joe says:

    LoL! Dogs evolving from something that is very dog-like is not evidence for macroevolution. Talk about desperation

  142. 142
    Joe says:

    thorton thinks that languages can arise without intelligent agency involvement- what a deluded loser.

  143. 143
    Collin says:

    Joe, you make a good point in 141, but you don’t set a good example of good behavior with your insults. I would hate to see this blog turn into panda’s thumb or other darwinist sites.

  144. 144
    Thorton says:

    BTW PaV in #135 you whined about the quote I repeated in #130. If you weren’t such a willfully ignorant lump you’d know I provided the same quote from the abstract and a link to the paper in #106.

    I knew you wouldn’t even look at the paper but I thought interested lurkers might.

  145. 145
    Joe says:

    Collin- I don’t have any cheeks left to turn, so I hit back.

  146. 146
    Thorton says:

    Collin

    Joe, you make a good point in 141

    No he doesn’t. drc466 didn’t say languages arise through intelligent agency involvement. He claimed languages are intelligently designed.

    Pretty big difference unless you are going to open up the definition of “designed” to include any unguided and unplanned results. In which case evolution qualifies as a designer.

  147. 147
    Thorton says:

    Joe

    Collin- I don’t have any cheeks left to turn, so I hit back.

    In the photo of you we found on that YEC website you had at about 300 lbs of cheeks. 🙂

  148. 148
    Thorton says:

    Joe

    Dogs evolving from something that is very dog-like is not evidence for macroevolution

    Why not?

    What would qualify as evidence for macroevolution? Build a time machine and watch life for a few million years?

  149. 149
    rhampton7 says:

    PaV,

    What do you think explains the many species of foxes, some of whom can not interbreed because of differences in the number of chromosomes? Or the raccoon dog dog, also a member of Canidae, but with 12 less chromosomes than wolves/dogs?

  150. 150
    Joe says:

    Read Jerry Coyne- he goes over what macroevolution entails in “Why Evolution is True” and stop being so ignorant. BTW agency involvement means it was intelligently designed. And if you think that picture depicts a fat person then you are more deluded than I could ever imagine.

  151. 151
    drc466 says:

    Thorton @139,

    Really? Someone sat down one day and consciously designed the specifications and rules for English, Mandarin Chinese, and the Khoisan click languages?

    So, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are asking me if I think a single human being is responsible for the entire complexity of any given language, and respond “no”. Much the way I don’t think that Battista Farina sat down one day and designed the Ferrari from scratch.
    Human languages are, nonetheless, intelligently designed. Where do you think words come from? Or spellings of words? Or grammatical rules? You think the aliens that built the pyramids defined them? They sprang from the aether? Neutral accumulations of letters in other words until a new word hatches from an old one (The Neutral Theory of Language by Arumik!)?
    You would like to argue that, because not every feature of our current language is intentional, that language is somehow undesigned. Fine, if it makes you happy, some aspects of modern languages are the result of unintentional decay in meanings and usage.
    But words are the product of intelligence. Grammar is the product of intelligence. Languages don’t exist without the original design and intent of the creator(s) of the language. Without ID, there are no words. There is no grammar. There are no meanings associated with words. There is nothing there to decay and change/lose meaning.

    Sorta like life.

  152. 152
    Joe says:

    Unguided evolution can’t explain foxes

  153. 153
    Mung says:

    “The bomb,” keiths, was a dud.

  154. 154
    keith s says:

    Collin,

    I saw your question and provided a link to the relevant section of Theobald.

    Do you have some evidence to present against my argument?

  155. 155
    drc466 says:

    Apparently, it has not yet occurred to keith s that human languages, which are given as an example of an ONH, are intelligently designed…

  156. 156
    keith s says:

    Mung:

    “The bomb,” keiths, was a dud.

    The Iraqi Information Minister:

    There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!

  157. 157
    rhampton7 says:

    Joe,

    Can unguided evolution explain the speciation of foxes once the first pair of foxes appeared? What explains the raccoon dog?

  158. 158
    Joe says:

    Most likely built-in responses to environmental cues. Unguided evolution breaks and deforms.

  159. 159
    Joe says:

    keith s chokes on Darwin:

    Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

    Seeing that nested hierarchies REQUIRE distinguished groups, that natural arrangement won’t be that of a nested hierarchy.

    And it is very telling that keith s couldn’t understand that.

  160. 160
    keith s says:

    Hi Vincent,

    Last night I pointed to a major flaw in Douglas Axe’s protein experiment.

    I’m sure you get it, but today I thought of a good analogy for people who don’t understand the technical details:

    It’s as if Axe is arguing that you can’t drive from Milwaukee to Detroit, because if you draw a straight line between the two and follow it, you’ll run straight into Lake Michigan.

    (Axe’s argument is actually worse than that, but why flog a dead horse?)

  161. 161
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, although I do not pretend to have the math skills necessary to debunk Theobald’s claim more rigorously, I trust that Koonin and Luskin’s critique of Theobald’s methods, and the litany of other mathematicians/scientists I cited who found p-values for establishing statistical significance ‘worse than useless’, to be more than enough to call Theobald’s claim/bluff for ‘statistical significance’ into question.,,,
    Especially when you yourself had denied to me that Theobald had relied on Fisher’s methods to establish ‘statistical significance’, when in fact, I found out with no help from you, that Theobald himself cited Fisher not once, but twice, right before he tried to establish ‘statistical significance’ in his paper. In fact, if I recall correctly, you repeatedly denied that ‘statistical significance’ even had anything to do with your claim whatsoever.
    That certainly does not inspire confidence in me towards Theobald’s conclusion , nor does your track record with me inspire confidence in me as to your intellectual honesty in this matter towards me or others on UD.
    Moreover, since I lack the math skills to be able to offer a more rigorous rebuttal ‘in my own words’, in the other thread, which has over 1400 comments now, I had appealed directly to the empirical evidence itself in order to show that the fossil record, and the genetic evidence, looks nothing like what would be predicted from the ‘bottom up’ neo-Darwinian perspective your are defending. In fact, I listed the empirical evidence twice for you. (I will gladly list it again if need be). Yet you acted as if the empirical evidence itself, of the fossil record and the genetic evidence directly contradicting your claims, had no sway in the argument, and kept repeating your claim that unguided evolution is ‘trillions of times better’.
    Your claim is simply unmitigated hogwash!
    Empirical evidence has the final say in any argument of science no matter how good you think your math is, or how good your logic is, in the argument. And until you can produce some concrete empirical evidence that supports your position, your position is, in fact, no better than pseudo-scientific rambling!
    Feynman puts the situation for you like this,,,

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    Moreover to repeat what I said the other day, that you (and Theobald) would try to use math to prove that life is not Designed by God or anybody else is very much like a fish trying to prove that water does not exist,,,

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….”
    Interviewer:… “Come again(?) …”
    Berlinski: “No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.”
    per tofspot

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Gödel –

    As Van Til has put it, atheists must sit in God’s lap in order to be able to slap him,,

    “Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
    Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All (Stephen) Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules.
    Hawking needs God in order to deny Him.”
    – Cornelius Hunter –

    Moreover, it is the height of irony that Darwinists would all of the sudden be so keen on using math to try to prove their theory to be correct since Darwinists have been resolutely ignoring, time and again, the insurmountable mathematical difficulties that have been raised against their beloved theory by numerous highly esteemed mathematicians:
    In fact, the main reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly thought of as a pseudo-science instead of a proper science is because Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical basis, like other overarching physical theories of science do. A rigid mathematical basis in order to potentially falsify it (in fact, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, mathematics constantly shows us that Darwinian evolution is astronomically unlikely),,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012
    Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....56771.html

    “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
    Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician/logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist!

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity – October 9, 2014
    Excerpt: “it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.”,,,
    More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90231.html

    Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8

    quote from preceding video:

    “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!”
    Dr. David Berlinski

    Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
    Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.4

    HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
    Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_e.....hist12.htm

    Darwin’s Doubt – Chapter 12 – Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math – Dr. Paul Giem – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;index=7

    See also Mendel’s Accountant and Haldane’s Ratchet: John Sanford

    etc.. etc..

    Verse and Music:

    Colossians 1:16
    For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

    Who Am I – Casting Crowns (w/ lyrics)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcqria2wmg

  162. 162
    Joe says:

    LoL! Cowardy keith s never take his objections to Axe. Why does keith s think his cowardice and ignorance refute Axe?

  163. 163
    rhampton7 says:

    Joe,

    I’m still not clear. Are you saying that unguided evolution can not generate any new species within the same family (Canidae) or even the same genus (Vulpes)? If so, you should be careful to admit that this is a personal opinion and not a claim made by Intelligent Design theory.

    As I understand it, ID has not determined which species arose due to natural forces and which by intelligent intervention and/or frontloading. Presumably there would be breaks in the familiar tree of life, but as yet no such concrete determination has been proposed by ID scientists.

  164. 164
    bornagain77 says:

    Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....article-in

    ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics – June 2011 – Audio Podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_43-07_00

    Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson
    Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....35561.html

  165. 165
    keith s says:

    Reposting this:

    Just to hammer my point home, here is a comment of mine from TSZ:

    Some more questions for the ID supporters out there:

    1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?”

    Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    2. Bob is invited to the scene of an investigation by a friend who is an explosive forensics expert. They observe serious damage radiating out in all directions from a central point, decreasing with distance, as if an explosion had taken place. Bob’s friend performs some tests and finds large amounts of explosive residue. Bob says, “Somebody went to a lot of trouble to make it look like there was an explosion here. They even planted explosive residue on the scene! Of course, there wasn’t really an explosion.”

    Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    3. Bob and another friend, an astronomer, observe the positions of the planets over several years. They determine that the planets are moving in ellipses, with the sun at one of the foci. Bob says, “Isn’t that amazing? The angels pushing the planets around are following exactly the paths that the planets would have followed if gravity had been acting on them!” The astronomer gives Bob a funny look and says “Maybe gravity is working on those planets, with no angels involved at all. Doesn’t that seem more likely to you?”

    Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    4. Bob is hanging out at the office of a friend who is an evolutionary biologist. The biologist shows Bob how the morphological and molecular data establish the phylogenetic tree of the 30 major taxa of life to an amazing accuracy of 38 decimal places. “There couldn’t be a better confirmation of unguided evolution,” the biologist says. “Don’t be ridiculous,” Bob replies. “All of those lifeforms were clearly designed. It’s just that the Designer chose to imitate unguided evolution, instead of picking one of the trillions of other options available to him.”

    Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    Share your answers with us. Did your answers to the four questions differ? If so, please explain exactly why.

    And ponder this: If you are an ID supporter, then you are making exactly the same mistake as Bob does in the four examples above, using the same broken logic. Isn’t that a little embarrassing? It might be time to rethink your position.

    And don’t forget the Rain Fairy.

  166. 166
    Joe says:

    rhampton- anything is possible.

  167. 167
    Joe says:

    keith s- what is that ignorant fake argument supposed to prove beyond that you are deluded and desperate?

  168. 168
    Thorton says:

    The best analogy for Axe’s brain fart I heard was:

    A troop of boy scouts starts in the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Half the troop hikes the trail to the North rim. The other half of the troop hikes the trail to the South Rim.
    Along comes ID genius Axe and declares it’s impossible the two groups got there by hiking from a common spot because one group can’t jump the 10 miles directly across the Canyon to the other group. 🙂

  169. 169
    Mung says:

    keiths, what’s really sad here is that you lack even a moderate amount of entertainment value.

    Why flog a dead horse? Because it beats trying to lead it to water. But don’t let that stop you trying.

  170. 170
    Joe says:

    Joe and keith were walking through the British countryside when they happened upon Stonehenge. “That is a nicely designed structure. Just look at the mortsce and tenon joints”, Joe remarked. “Designed?”, asked keith,

    Those are just stones and nature can produce stones. There’s no design here.”

    Who has the better argument?

  171. 171
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    Cowardy keith s never take his objections to Axe.

    Cowardly Axe never submitted this work to any professional science journals.

    He only published this crap in the DI’s vanity rag, he gets laughed at on science blogs.

  172. 172
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    The IDers here aren’t doing very well in their rebuttal attempts, and that’s an embarrassment for the ID cause.

    It’s not an embarrassment at all. Where there is no argument, as the OP points out, there is no rebuttal required. The number one feature of your bomb is that it’s not a bomb, it’s a marshmallow. how does one rebut “I’ve posted a marshmallow!”?

  173. 173
    Joe says:

    LoL! The people who laugh at Axe are imbeciles on an agenda. There isn’t anything in peer-review that challenges his work.

  174. 174
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    Imagine that the situation were reversed, and that ID was trillions of times better than unguided evolution at explaining the objective nested hierarchy.

    Let’s not imagine that, because while your argument may be imaginative, that’s not the way ID operates.

    There is no such thing as “an objective nested hierarchy explained by unguided evolution.” Not in reality, anyways.

    Probably not even in theory.

  175. 175
    Thorton says:

    Joe

    The people who laugh at Axe are imbeciles on an agenda. There isn’t anything in peer-review that challenges his work.

    That’s because real scientists are smart enough to not waste time on a self-published crackpot.

  176. 176
    Mung says:

    keiths @29:

    Imagine that the situation were reversed…

    How many IDers would be saying…

    None.

    The very thought is laughable.

    The scenario you presented is indeed laughable.

    Drop the double standard, IDers.

    What double standard?

  177. 177
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    3. We know that unguided evolution exists.

    How do you know [scientifically] that unguided evolution exists? There’s a scientific test? Do tell.

    What does an “objective nested hierarchy” which is created by “unguided evolution” look like, and how do you know?

    If there are “trillions” of objective nested hierarchies that can be produced by ID, but only one that can be produced by unguided evolution, how do you know which is which? Objectively.

  178. 178
    rich says:

    Again, I’d think the Stonehenge example is worthy of a post of its own.

  179. 179
    Joe says:

    thorton, your position doesn’t have any real scientists that can support the claims of evolutionism

  180. 180
    Joe says:

    rich wants to discuss why keith would think Stonehenge wasn’t designed because nature produces stones.

  181. 181
    bornagain77 says:

    the Journal of Molecular Biology is an ‘ID rag’?

    Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds – Douglas D. Axe – 2004
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....3604007624

    well it’s nice to know that JMB has finally officially become an ID rag

    I guess, according to Thorton’s non-partial reasoning, the Quarterly Review of Biology is also an ID rag,,

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

  182. 182
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    your position doesn’t have any real scientists that can support the claims of evolutionism

    Joke, most children realize by the age of 5 that the “nuh uh!” defense doesn’t work. But by all means keep using it. Keep being the poster-boy for ID.

  183. 183
    Box says:

    Keith,

    Keith #111: If you treat them equally, unguided evolution blows ID out of the water. It isn’t even close.
    ID is a profoundly irrational position.
    I’m not sure I can make this any more obvious, Box. If you still don’t get it, I’m afraid it may be out of your reach.

    Even if I grant you the (absurd; see post #7) conclusion that unguided evolution is a trillion times better explanation for nested hierarchies than ID, it stops right there.

    From this it does NOT follow that unguided evolution explains far more important features of life like: OOL, proteins, genetic code, molecular machines et cetera. In fact, unguided evolution is presenting itself as a extremely poor candidate; see VJTorley’s quote #7.

    IOW the race for the best explanation for life is surely NOT decided by the relatively trivial question “which one is better at explaining nested hierarchies?”

    Keith #164:
    1. Bob is walking through the desert with his friend, a geologist. They come across what appears to be a dry streambed. After some thought, Bob states that every rock, pebble, grain of sand and silt particle was deliberately placed in its exact position by a Streambed Designer. His friend says “That’s ridiculous. This streambed has exactly the features we would expect to see if it was created by flowing water. Why invoke a Streambed Designer?” Who has the better theory, Bob or his friend?

    Surely, in this case Bob has the better theory. Why is your example relevant? As it has been explained to you by WJMurray: “ID already stipulates that if natural forces can plausibly generate the artifact, natural forces are the better explanation.”
    Matters are entirely different when it comes to the origin of cars, computers, books, proteins, genetic code and molecular machines. Actually unguided evolution is doing very poorly here. In these cases intelligent design is a superior explanation by a magnitude of a trillion; see VJTorley’s quote post#7).

    *** Why do I have to repeat myself over and over? Why don’t you get it? ***

  184. 184
    rich says:

    I’d like a discussion of design detection for StoneHenge in general

  185. 185
    Mung says:

    There is such a thing as an objective nested hierarchy if you assume unguided evolution didit.

    Therefore, the objective nested hierarchy proves that unguided evolution didit.

    IDiots!

  186. 186
    Box says:

    Correction post #182:
    Surely, in this case Bob’s friend has the better theory.

  187. 187
    keith s says:

    Poor bornagain77 doesn’t even know which paper we’re discussing.

    Don’t let that stop you from spamming us to death, BA77.

  188. 188
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    most children realize by the age of 5 that the “nuh uh!” defense doesn’t work.

    Yet that is all you have.

  189. 189
    Mung says:

    rich:

    I’d like a discussion of design detection for StoneHenge in general.

    I’d like a discussion of “unguided evolution is a trillions time better explanation” for StoneHenge in general

    Not gonna happen.

  190. 190
    Joe says:

    rich:

    I’d like a discussion of design detection for StoneHenge in general.

    You can read all about it, rich. Basically it was determined that nature couldn’t have done it and it shows signs of work and counterflow.

  191. 191
    bornagain77 says:

    keith s, I’ll gladly submit ‘spam on top of spam’ in response to your unsubstantiated conjectures so as to expose you for the liar that you have no shame in being.

    Unfortunately for you, others consider being dishonest to be a serious flaw in a person, not a virtue which you seem to think it is.

  192. 192
    keith s says:

    Box,

    *** Why do I have to repeat myself over and over? Why don’t you get it? ***

    Exactly the question I’ve been wanting to ask you.

    What part of this comment is confusing you? Can’t you see that I am treating ID and unguided evolution equally?

    When I do that, ID loses — badly.

    Even if I grant you the (absurd; see post #7) conclusion that unguided evolution is a trillion times better explanation for nested hierarchies than ID, it stops right there.

    From this it does NOT follow that unguided evolution explains far more important features of life like: OOL, proteins, genetic code, molecular machines et cetera. In fact, unguided evolution is presenting itself as a extremely poor candidate; see VJTorley’s quote #7.

    This is not that hard, Box, if you’d just take off the religious blinders.

    Suppose that the tables were turned, and ID predicted the ONH a trillion times better than unguided evolution. Everyone reading this — including you — knows perfectly well that in that situation you would not be saying, “Oh, that’s a trivial point. We can’t conclude anything from that.” You’d be shouting it from the rooftops and saying that it vindicated ID.

    Besides that bit of hypocrisy, you are failing to notice the enormous assumptions you are making in favor of the ID hypothesis: namely, that a designer exists, and that he/she/it has the capabilities necessary to produce proteins, the genetic code, molecular machines, and so on.

    The double standard is obvious. You are assuming those things on behalf of ID while forbidding any such assumptions on behalf of unguided evolution.

    How can it not be obvious to you that you are putting your finger on the scales?

    The fact that my conclusion upsets you is no excuse. The truth is not obligated to conform to your wishes.

  193. 193
    bornagain77 says:

    Funny, the fossil record looks nothing like would be expected from a ‘bottom up’ Darwinian scenario:

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.”
    -Dr. Mark McMenamin – 2013
    Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals

    “The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
    (Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

    “Almost all currently existing Metazoan phyla emerged during a relatively short Cambrian period around 510–550 million years ago (Cambrian Explosion) (reviewed in refs. 1 and 2). In previous periods paleontologists find diverse fauna of unicellular organisms and spongi. Shortly before Cambrian period some Cnidarian and Ediacaran fauna was found, but no other Metazoa. The appearance in evolution of the entire Metazoan fauna seems to have been very sudden. Interestingly, even in early Cambrian layers, in addition to primitive representatives of various phyla, more advanced forms, including relatively complex Crustaceae were discovered.3 Based on these data it was suggested that diversification of Metazoa started way before Cambrian period, however this suggestion appeals to existence of effectively unfossilizable forms, making these types of organism paleontologically “invisible”. This idea is supported by reports of putative trace fossils (e.g., tracks or burrows) dating to pre-Cambrian era. These claims, however, raise a question why fossilizable forms of various phyla appeared almost simultaneously, and were generally refuted, as discussed in recent review (ref. 2). Therefore, it appears that there was no sequential appearance of the major Metazoan taxons from simpler to more complex phyla, as would be predicted by the classical evolutionary model.”
    Shermer, M. – Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution. Cell Cycle. 2007 Aug 1;6(15):1873-7

    “If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world’s higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.”
    (Valentine, Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987)

    The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity – Casey Luskin – February 4, 2014
    Excerpt: “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
    (James W. Valentine, “Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81911.html

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine – video – I believe he was quoted sometime in the early to mid 2000’s
    http://www.arn.org/arnproducts.....m.php?id=7

    The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism – David Tyler – May 2011
    Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artifact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....niformitar

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.” Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin’s Dilemma? – JonathanM – May 2012
    Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....59171.html

    “The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line.”
    Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97.

    As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”

    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
    Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67021.html

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.”
    Christopher R.C. Paul, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates,” K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, eds., Evolution and the Fossil Record (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 105.

    “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.’
    Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132.

    “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, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “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.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” –
    Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

    “The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion.”
    Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46

  194. 194
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    Please can you show how an unguided process created a guided process to prevent unguided process from happening. It’s been a week almost and absolutely no reply from anybody other that the usual retort, “You’re stupid” You don’t understand” “A god won’t do it that way”

    Unless you can demonstrate this request your beliefs that unguided evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life stays just that

    Your beliefs!

  195. 195
    Andre says:

    I need to make an observation not only on this thread but pretty much all threads where we go into these mud slinging contests.

    To the materialists and supposed sceptics I would like to clarify my position, I may not be speaking for myself but also for others who are free to comment on what I am about to say.

    When you label us as IDiots, creationists and God knows what else, you are not belittling us, it is actually a compliment and here is why;

    All that we have ever asked you for is verifiable and testable proof of your claims, we are not swayed by assumptions, beliefs, or magic. Darwinian evolution in the way the materialist presents it is based on exactly those three things. Assumptions, beliefs and magic. Almost all your claims are not testable so it’s impossible to verify its truth, don’t get me wrong it may be true but with out any way of testing what you say I will remain sceptical.

    You can not give a plausible mechanism for OOL
    You can not give a plausible mechanism on how unguided processes have the ability to generate complexity
    You can’t give us a plausible answer on the origin of information

    So stop trying to convince us on what you believe, just give us the evidence so that it can be tested.

  196. 196
    Vishnu says:

    I think all reasonable heads can agree that keiths and and his pals are full balony. Poseurs on parade at best.

    From the sidelines, we do appreciate their participation.

    They have helped to make things very clear and obvious.

    More than they probably intended.

    Hats off to keiths and his (semi retarded) fellow travelers!

  197. 197
    keith s says:

    Vishnu,

    Your bravado is obviously false. If it were genuine, you would refute my argument.

  198. 198
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    Not only has your argument been refuted several times, you’ve gone into ignoring mode, a telling sign that you don’t really have anything.

    Let me ask you this….

    How does one refute an assumption? Easy you point out that it is just an assumption……

    You have nothing you can’t even give us any evidence how an unguided process have the ability to create a guided process. Unguided processes will not have these nested hierarchies you are hammering on about because unguided processes will not go into any type of direction…..

    Why do I think there is such a thing as a nested hierarchy? why this interrelatedness?

    2 words

    Food chain!

  199. 199
    Thorton says:

    No Vishnu, thank you and your fellow scientifically ignorant and incompetent ID-Creationists for providing hours of laughter with your pratfalls and childish posturing. Sorry that you had to wash the brown stains from your underwear so often; maybe some day the sight of an actual scientific paper will no longer have that effect on your delicate psyche.

  200. 200
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    Honestly? Just taking about brown stains instead of science? Then you have less than I wanted to believe….

    Give it go Thornton, how did unguided processes create a guided processes that prevents unguided processes from happening, Keith is on ignore mode because he knows he’s been caught out and instead of being his lapdog be your own man and answer the question or will you forever be in the shadow of others?

  201. 201
    keith s says:

    Hi Vincent,

    Continuing with the final paragraph of your comment:

    But let’s be generous and grant that the existence of a (transcendent, cosmic) Designer is a priori improbable. Let’s even grant that the occurrence of natural and moral evils in the world makes the existence of this Designer unlikely.

    Even the comparatively minor evil of the toilet paper problem (along with many, many others just like it) makes the existence of an omniGod unlikely.

    Given that the number of events that have occurred in the history of the observable universe is 10^150 at most, using Laplace’s sunrise argument (which Wikipedia has an article on), we can see that even if every event in the history of the universe constituted evidence against the existence of a Designer, the a priori probability of a Designer would still be no lower than 1 in 10^150.

    This doesn’t make sense to me. You seem to be assuming that all pieces of evidence have equal weight.

    Since 10^1,1018 is much greater than 10^150, it follows that the argument from design trumps the argument from evil.

    Koonin’s number is questionable, as I mentioned in my previous reply to you. Also, what does the argument from evil have to do with the existence of an OOL designer? The designer could be evil or indifferent, couldn’t he/she/it?

    (The point I am making here is that the argument from evil is merely cumulative, hence the probabilities involved are additive; whereas the probabilities involved in the argument from design are multiplicative. Multiplication trumps addition.)

    I don’t follow your reasoning here. Didn’t you say at one point that you were going to do an OP on the sunrise problem and its relation to ID?

    Anyway, although this is intriguing, I don’t see its relevance to my argument. As I’ve said, my argument concerns evolution after the origin of life, regardless of how that happened. Even if you could show that OOL required a designer, that wouldn’t show that subsequent evolution involved or required one.

  202. 202
    Thorton says:

    Here’s the latest list of questions all you cowards ran from on the outside chance you can muster up at least one testicle between you.

    Speaking of Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt can anyone give me the official ID position?

    Meyer says at the beginning of the Cambrian period about 540 MYA the Designer shows up. Then it takes him 10-20 million years to design two dozen or so new body plans. Then the Designer disappears.

    1. What is the ID explanation for the 3+ billion years of life on Earth before the Cambrian, including the 100 million years of multicellular life?

    2. What is the ID explanation for the 500 MYA of life after the Cambrian, including the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event? Did the Designer’s original creations macroevolve?

    3. What is the ID explanation for the re-radiation of life after each of the five known mass extinction events in Earth’s history?

    I know the odds of that probably exceed the UPB.

  203. 203
    Andre says:

    I read through the comments on my OP that I did not even ask for and there is just nothing there that shows how PCD could have arisen by any unguided process… Nothing instead all there is, is waffle!

    So you’ve taught me nothing Keith S, instead you’ve just affirmed what we already know, you suck most of this stuff from your thumbs and then call it some sort of fact!

  204. 204
    Andre says:

    Thronton

    Defend your claim first, stop trying to change the subject, once we’ve dealt with your assumptions we can deal with your questions or are you posting those questions because you realized your assumptions have been found wanting? Seems that way to me…..

  205. 205
    Thorton says:

    You’re already on the “don’t take seriously” list Andre for being a Joke Gallien class moron. Not something to be proud of.

    I only skim your posts to see if you’ve even reached a high school maturity level yet. No joy so far.

  206. 206
    Andre says:

    I’m only on that list because you have been found wanting…. Had you been here to educate and enlighten, you would have been able to state your case and convince with proof, but you have not done that instead, you’re like the bully who hit another kid got his ass kicked and is no crying about it.

  207. 207
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    I’m only on that list because you have been found wanting…. Had you been here to educate and enlighten, you would have been able to state your case and convince with proof, but you have not done that instead, you’re like the bully who hit another kid got his ass kicked and is no crying about it.

    But Andre you’re the guy who bawls and runs away every time I ask a serious question about ID on an ID blog. You don’t even have the sack to defend your PCD nonsense over at TSZ where there’s a whole thread waiting just for you. So cry us a river about how you’re the poor bullied victim.

  208. 208
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    I’m only on that list because you have been found wanting…. Had you been here to educate and enlighten, you would have been able to state your case and convince with proof, but you have not done that instead, you’re like the bully who hit another kid got his ass kicked and is no crying about it.

    But Andre you’re the guy who bawls and runs away every time I ask a serious question about ID on an ID blog. You don’t even have the sack to defend your PCD nonsense over at TSZ where there’s a whole thread waiting just for you. So cry us a river about how you’re the poor bullied victim.

  209. 209
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    I’m only on that list because you have been found wanting…. Had you been here to educate and enlighten, you would have been able to state your case and convince with proof, but you have not done that instead, you’re like the bully who hit another kid got his ass kicked and is no crying about it.

    But Andre you’re the guy who bawls and runs away every time I ask a serious question about ID on an ID blog. You don’t even have the sack to defend your PCD nonsense over at TSZ where there’s a whole thread waiting just for you. So cry us a river about how you’re the poor bullied victim.

  210. 210
    Andre says:

    What serious question about ID have you been asking? The tripe above? All you’re really asking there is what is the designer like? Does he like coffee? Tea? McDonalds or Burger King?

    Who cares about that? Only you it seems!

  211. 211
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    I never asked for an OP, I already told you I will on principle not comment there. I’m not the victim and I never said that, are you sure that you’re chemical reactions are ok?

  212. 212
    Thorton says:

    I’ve changed my opinion on you Andre. You haven’t even made it to 5th grade maturity level.

  213. 213
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    Opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one……

  214. 214
    Thorton says:

    I have no idea how that triple post happened. Server hiccup?

  215. 215
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    I have no idea how that triple post happened. Server hiccup?

    Unguided processess

  216. 216
    Andre says:

    That’s what happens when the guided processes fail……

  217. 217
    Thorton says:

    Make that 3rd grade. And you still can’t answer even the most basic questions about ID’s positions. That makes ID completely worthless, not that there was any doubt.

  218. 218
    Andre says:

    Thronton

    And you still can’t answer even the most basic questions about ID’s positions

    I don’t know if the designer likes tea or coffee! Do you?

  219. 219
    gpuccio says:

    thorton at #201:

    I love your questions! Much more than your “arguments”…

    So:

    Two premises:

    a) There is no “official ID position”. ID is a scientific paradigm, not a political party with a party line. Maybe you were thinking of neo darwinism… I am very happy, however, to give you my personal answers, in an ID perspective.

    b) I am not sure if “Then the Designer disappears” correctly describes Meyer’s position. I certainly disagree, as I have already explained to you. The basci statement of any ID position is that any emergence of new CSI requires a design intervention. Meyer has correctly focused on two great events where the emergence of new CSI is massive, OOL and the Cambrian explosion, but as I have said any appearance of a new complex protein domain or superfamily, or of a new complex regulatory system, requires a design intervention.

    That said, to the answers:

    1) is interesting, and is a legitimate question whatever the theory one embraces. It is a true fact that natural history of life on our planet has specific times.

    However we consider those tomes, and try to explain them, they remain the facts, and must guide our reasoning.

    Those times are reasonable, but certainly “strange”. In a sense, some of them are still provisional. Let’s see. I will try a very gross, and probably not accurate, sketch of a likely timeline:

    Origin of our planet: 4.6 billion years ago.

    Origin of life: very uncertain. Probably 4 billion years ago. No idea of what exists or happens here.

    LUCA (split bacteria archea): very uncertain. Probably 3.5 billion years ago. LUCA is a well defined scientific inference.

    Eukaryotes: very uncertain. Probably 1.9 billion years ago.

    Ediacara explosion (first comnplex metazoa): 580 million years ago

    Cambrian explosion (actual metazoa phyla): 540 million years ago.

    What happens after is better known. A very “quick” evolution and diversification of the phyla which appear at the Cambrian. For example, vertebrates appear very early after the Cambrian (maybe 480 million years ago). Mammals appear about 100 million years ago. There are the extinctions and radiations that you love so much.

    As I have already said, there is a lot of design happening at all these times. Not £every day”, probably, as you for some reason seem to attribute to my thinking, but certainly often.

    So, why are these times those that they are?

    I don’t think we really know. But there are many possible reasons. The main is that they are required either for the design implementation, or for the “formatting” of the environment. Those are both good reasons.

    IMO, the Ediacara explosion and extinction are apparently signs of a design attempt which for some reason failed. The Cambrian is a new attempt, which went better. That is only an opinion, but I would not know how to explain two so different and “near” explosions of body plans otherwise.

    There are problems in the times, both for ID and for neo darwinism. There are certainly interesting “asymmetries”.

    The most interesting, and the worst for neo darwinism, is the rather “quick” emergence of life: a few hundred million years to build prokaryotes “from scratch”. Now, OOL would falsify neo darwinism even in thousands of billion years, but a few hundred million! It’s ridiculous.

    Eukaryotes seem to have taken more time. Probably (the times are not that certain here, IMO). I believe that the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is really a major design achievement. All molecular data about proteins and regulatory systems confirm that.

    In comparison, the emergence of metazoa and complex body plans is rather quick. That is not certainly in favor of neo darwinism (indeed, it is completely unexaplained from that point of view), but I am certainly amazed of that “quickness” from an ID point of view too.

    The rest is better known, and certainly poses many problems too. I don’t pretend to have definite answers to those problems. I only know that the ID paradigm is certainly more compatible with those times than the neo darwinisn paradigm. For a neo darwinian paradigm, the times are all wrong.

    However, that is science: recognizing problems and trying to explain them. We certainly need to know more to solve the problem of the time laps.

    2. Sure. The original designs (body plans) certainly macroevolved. By further design implementations. What’s the problem?

    3. Design applied to environmental changes and events when necessary. What’s the problem?

  220. 220
    Joe says:

    Darwin refutes keith s and keith s is too stupid or too dishonest to realize it:

    Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.– Charles Darwin chapter 14

    That means any arrangement other than a nested hierarchy because a nested hierarchy requires distinguished groups.

    keith s is a loser and apparently proud of it.

  221. 221
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    every time I ask a serious question about ID on an ID blog.

    thorton has yet to ask a serious question about ID. thorton is too stupid to do so.

  222. 222
    Joe says:

    Over on Cornelius Hunter’s blog Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:

    There isn’t any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans

    Good thing then that the actual scientific theory doesn’t posit life evolving through genetic ‘accidents’.

    Have you ever read a college level biology book in your life? Have you ever read any science textbooks?

    Unfortunately for Thorton I understand the ToE and science better than he does:

    Thorton shot down by reality

    So now what did Throton do?

    Why it throws a hissy fit as expected…

  223. 223
    Box says:

    Keith,

    Keith #191: Suppose that the tables were turned, and ID predicted the ONH a trillion times better than unguided evolution. Everyone reading this — including you — knows perfectly well that in that situation you would not be saying, “Oh, that’s a trivial point. We can’t conclude anything from that.” You’d be shouting it from the rooftops and saying that it vindicated ID.

    If the tables were turned. If ID predicted ONH, but was completely unable to explain the existence of even one instance of CSI – let alone proteins, OOL, genetic code, molecular machines and the information to build animals – while unguided evolution’s capability of producing CSI was beyond any doubt.

    I would NOT be shouting from the rooftops.

    And I would certainly not be shouting that my site won the overall battle. Since I would realize that it is a small victory in a much wider battle. And if the odds were so bad for ID, with regard to OOL, genetic code, molecular machines (see VJTorley post #7) I wouldn’t mention the trillion at all. Because I would know that, with tremendous margins at stake, a trillion doesn’t mean anything.

  224. 224
    Astroman says:

    Joe, mistakes are not necessarily accidents and accidents are not necessarily mistakes. The link you provided at Hunter’s blog goes to a page that doesn’t show anything about your claim, and no matter what it may have once said you and all other ID proponents should know better than to try to make it look as though Evolutionary Theory is based on a claim that accidents or mistakes are solely responsible for the diversity of life, and especially when going by your definition of accidents or mistakes.

  225. 225
    bornagain77 says:

    Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
    Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

    Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigenetic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

  226. 226
    Astroman says:

    Joe, you are often asked serious, relevant questions about ID, its entailments, and its methods but you avidly avoid answering them, attack the persons who asked, declare that scientists are all losers and cowards, and brazenly claim victory. How is that victorious? What have you won?

  227. 227
    Astroman says:

    bornagain77, notice the word “not”. You’ve actually provided evidence against Joe’s claims and the claims by other ID proponents who try to make it look as though Evolutionary Theory is based on a claim that accidents or mistakes are solely responsible for the diversity of life, and especially when going by Joe’s or other ID proponents’ definition of accidents or mistakes.

  228. 228
    bornagain77 says:

    So Astroman do you, like Dr. Shapiro, say that the modern synthesis of Neo-Darwinism is wrong? If so, what alternative theory to Neo-Darwinism do you support?

    “J.A. Shapiro, a professor at the University of Chicago, is searching for a “third way,” a scientific, non-Darwinian way.”

  229. 229
    Andre says:

    How many meanings does mistakes have? How many meanings does accident have? Random? How many?

  230. 230
    Astroman says:

    bornagain77, why are you and other ID proponents so hung up on Darwin, and why do you think that Evolutionary Theory automatically equals “Darwinism”, “Neo-Darwinism”, or “the modern synthesis”?

  231. 231
    bornagain77 says:

    So Astroman, in regards to my question that you did not answer, are you saying that you do not support the modern synthesis of Neo-Darwinism as it is currently taught in public schools? If so what other Naturalistic theory do you suggest replacing the modern synthesis in public schools with? Self organization, Natural Genetic Engineering, etc..???

    If you don’t want the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism to be replaced in public schools, why? After all you wouldn’t want children taught that the earth was flat would you? i.e. You would not want something that is known to be completely wrong taught to children would you?

  232. 232
    Astroman says:

    Andre, it doesn’t matter exactly how many definitions there are for accidents or mistakes. What matters in my response to Joe and bornagain77 is if or how those words are defined and used to label evolutionary processes or results. That you also asked for the number of meanings of the word “Random” shows me that you’ve conveniently ignored the proper definition of “Random” as it applies to biology and evolution.

  233. 233
    Astroman says:

    bornagain77, you’re obviously trying to move the goal posts and play a diversionary, distorted game that you make up and control as you go along. I wasn’t born yesterday and won’t be drawn in.

  234. 234
  235. 235
    bornagain77 says:

    Actually Astroman, I am being forthright. You said I was “hung up on Darwin”, and then you asked “why do you think that Evolutionary Theory automatically equals “Darwinism”, “Neo-Darwinism”, or “the modern synthesis”?”,,, and in response I merely pointed out that the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism is currently taught in public schools as if it were an unquestionable fact.

    I was interested in what other theory of Evolution, (since you seem to readily distance yourself from the modern synthesis of Neo-Darwinism as it is currently taught in public schools), you support. That is an honest question. I am not moving goal posts, or playing a diversionary, distorted game. I honestly want to know what other theory of Evolution you support. If you do not know what other ‘naturalistic’ options you have to Neo-Darwinism, various alternatives are discussed here,,

    The Third Way
    “J.A. Shapiro a professor at the University of Chicago, , and other top researchers, is searching for a “third way,” a scientific, non-Darwinian way.”
    http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

    A Group of Darwin-Skeptical Scientists Seeking a “Third Way” in Biology – May 2014
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....86231.html

    podcast – Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution – Aug 2014
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_31-07_00

    Darwin’s Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem – video – The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization
    Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin’s Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to ‘make up’ for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....Ow3u0_mK8t

  236. 236
    Andre says:

    What does random mean in evolution and biology Astroman?

  237. 237
    Joe says:

    astro:

    Joe, you are often asked serious, relevant questions about ID,

    Not really.

    Joe, mistakes are not necessarily accidents and accidents are not necessarily mistakes.

    So mistakes are planned? Or perhaps you just don’t know anything

    should know better than to try to make it look as though Evolutionary Theory is based on a claim that accidents or mistakes are solely responsible for the diversity of life,

    Please link to this “evolutionary theory” so we can see what it says. Thanks.

    All evo-biologists say is evolution proceeds via accidents/ errors/mistakes. If you have something that says otherwise please present it,

  238. 238
    logically_speaking says:

    Keith S said to Vincent,

    “This doesn’t make sense to me. You seem to be assuming that all pieces of evidence have equal weight”.

    It seems that evidence has equal weight only when Keith wants it to be, as his argument relys on all things being equal.

    “I want to treat ID and unguided evolution equally, to see which one prevails on a level playing field”.

    Also another point I want to address is,

    “The designer could be evil or indifferent, couldn’t he/she/it”?

    No this is impossible, any act of creation is inherently good for either the created thing and/or the creator. Not only that but an indifferent designer would not design anything in the first place.

  239. 239
    Joe says:

    astro:

    The link you provided at Hunter’s blog goes to a page that doesn’t show anything about your claim,

    Yes, it does.

  240. 240
    Joe says:

    1.DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals

    2.Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

    DNA damage would be an accident.

  241. 241
    PaV says:

    Rhampton7:

    I have not said that NS is unable to bring about changes, i.e., microevolution. I suspect that there are built-in genetic mechanisms that account for such differences. But that there is no interbreeding between some dogs, and hence, per modern-day definitions, separate species, does not mean that we have stumbled upon mechanisms that, given enough time, will lead to ‘macro-evolution.’ One of those dogs has “fewer” chromosomes, if they are “different”, and this might simply mean that there was a “loss” of a chromosome by one of the lineages. It would be absurd to say that either “complexity” or “information” is built up in this manner.

    The example I used with Thorton was simply because he was asking for a “barrier,” and he is the type that will haggle over any and all details ad infinitum. So as not to waste my time, I pointed out the obvious to him.

    The counter-argument to AS, is the notion that AS cannot do what NS can do. Yet, breeding belies this notion.

    It is ironic that NS is based on AS, and that there are clear-cut limitations to what AS can do. How to get around this? Just as Darwin did, claim that NS can do much, much more than AS. But, if AS runs up against limits to morphological plasticity, then why extrapolate an almost unlimited kind of morphological plasticity as Darwin did? Isn’t this just wishful thinking?

  242. 242
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    Always the simpleton:

    Yet every piece of canidae genetic and fossil data we have shows the origin of the extant canids goes back to a common ancestor at least 10 million years ago. You have no magic barrier.

    We all know about the fossil record, Thorton. No one denies that there is such a record. You simply “assume” everything you see is due to evolution, and then turn around and use the record as “proof” of evolution. You’re begging the argument.

    I’ve wasted enough time, my friend. Be silly all you want.

  243. 243
    Thorton says:

    gpuccio

    a) There is no “official ID position”.

    Understatement on the century.

    ID is a scientific paradigm, not a political party with a party line

    Then please get your cohort to stop calling it ID “theory”

    As for the rest of your narrative, I get

    1. The designer was around 3.5 BYA and took over 3 billion years to get the planet ready. No explanation for the single celled life on the planet all that time. Doesn’t sound like the same Guy who created the whole universe and the “Privileged Planet” just for humans, eh?

    2. 100MY before the Cambrian the Designer started tinkering with multicellular life. It took him that whole 100 MY to figure out the final designs after many false starts. Pretty damn slow and incompetent design.

    3. 20 MY to do the Cambrian designs. Again pretty slow for a Designer with omnipotent powers.

    4. The 500 MY after the Cambrian no explanation for the Great Ordovician radiation, no explanation for the five major mass extinction events, no explanation for the re-radiation of life. Macroevolution did occur but it was just the Designer tinkering and fixing his screw ups again. Those dinosaurs existing for 135 million years were a bad idea I suppose. Finally after 3.5 BY the Designer decided to create humans, supposedly the end goal of the Design.

    Wow. I bet you can’t get another IDer here to agree with any of that.

    Thanks though for at least attempting an answer and making the conversation a bit more interesting. That’s way more than the rest of the ID “scientists” here who absolutely refuse to discuss ID.

  244. 244
    Joe says:

    LoL! As if evos agree on everything evolution. Grow up, timmy.

    And AGAIN, those timelines were under the evolutionary framework.

  245. 245
    Astroman says:

    “All evo-biologists say is evolution proceeds via accidents/ errors/mistakes.”

    Joe, you should tell the truth, especially since you constantly call your opponents liars just because they don’t agree with you. Your claim that “evolution proceeds via accidents/ errors/mistakes” is “all” that evolutionary biologists say is completely false. No evolutionary biologist does that.

    You have already been provided with links and suggestions as to where to look for Evolutionary Theory, and since you claim to know more than anyone else you should be able to find it on your own.

    Your link at Hunter’s blog goes to a page that says:

    “You are using an old link.

    Our site has undergone a major redesign and the page you are looking for is probably still here, just with a new url.

    The Search page will take a some time to catch up.”

  246. 246
    Thorton says:

    PaV

    We all know about the fossil record, Thorton. No one denies that there is such a record. You simply “assume” everything you see is due to evolution, and then turn around and use the record as “proof” of evolution. You’re begging the argument.

    Fossil and genetic data PaV. The data that independently produces the twin nested hierarchies of life. The data that shows the canidae relationships going back 50 MY and the extant canids back 10 MY.

    Canidae Family Tree

    I know you don’t do data PaV. It’s scary and there’s just too much of it you can’t explain. So hide here at UD with the rest of the children where you’re safe from scientific reality.

  247. 247
    Joe says:

    astro:

    Your claim that “evolution proceeds via accidents/ errors/mistakes” is “all” that evolutionary biologists say is completely false. No evolutionary biologist does that.

    They all do. I can list paper after paper and textbooks that confirm my claims.

    You have already been provided with links and suggestions as to where to look for Evolutionary Theory,

    I have looked. It doesn’t exist.

    Why can’t YOU just link to it? I say it is because it doesn’t exist.

    Here are the evolutionary references to support my claim:

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

    Evolution is rife with examples of such apparent conflict because it is an inherently dualistic process. This dualism is obvious in Darwin’s enduring characterization of evolution as descent with modification. This dualism is manifested in a mechanism that is prospectively blind, but retrospectively capable of organic improvement. page 4 (bold added)

    Then we have:

    “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”

    and:

    “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UCBerkley

    From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I read- Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, (edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

    Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.- page10

    The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race. -page 10 ending the intro

    What Causes Mutations?:

    Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:
    1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals

    2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

    Causes of Mutations:

    1. DNA fails to copy accurately
    Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are “naturally-occurring.” For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.

    2. External influences can create mutations
    Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.

    DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:

    DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)

    ?
    And finally:

    The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative

    September 9, 2005

    Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

    IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don’t even understand their own position.

  248. 248
    Joe says:

    The vast majority of fossils are those of marine inverts. And we do not observe common descent with those. thorton doesn’t know what a nested hierarchy is, so whatever he sez about them is bound to be false.

    BTW the data is assumed to be that from natural selection and drift. That also means it is bound to be false and neither can account for dogs.

  249. 249
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    LoL! As if evos agree on everything evolution. Grow up, timmy.

    Science agrees on the basics like timeline and the mechanisms. You guys can’t even do that.

    And AGAIN, those timelines were under the evolutionary framework.

    Then give us the timelines under the ID framework.

  250. 250
    bornagain77 says:

    as to dogs Thorton,,

    The Dog Delusion – October 30, 2014
    Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels.
    Michael Behe writes:
    “Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution — the enormous variation in dogs — actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?”
    The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig’s prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90751.html

  251. 251
    phoodoo says:

    Astro,

    I don’t need a link. Don’t be shy (like old Thorton there) just tell us, what is this supposed theory of evolution?

  252. 252
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    Science agrees on the basics like timeline and the mechanisms.

    Reference please.

  253. 253
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    I have looked. It doesn’t exist.

    Chubby Joke is still in toddler-style “nuh uh!” mode. I wonder how long the phase will last?

    Keep making ID proud Joke. You’re the best!

  254. 254
    Thorton says:

    Looks like Poodoo wants to join Joke in the “Nuh uh!” toddler playpen too

  255. 255
    Joe says:

    thorton is still too much of a coward to link to the alleged theory of evolution.

    Why is that, timmy?

  256. 256
    Joe says:

    Obviously we are right and you are just an ignorant coward, timmy.

    There isn’t any theory of evolution. Grow up and deal with reality.

  257. 257
    phoodoo says:

    I think Thorton is the perfect poster boy for the evolutionist side of the debate.

    Absolutely perfect.

  258. 258
    Joe says:

    It is very telling that the very people who love to try to prove that I am wrong are choking when asked to link to the theory of evolution.

  259. 259
    Thorton says:

    batspit77

    as to dogs Thorton,

    We’re discussing canidae evolution Phil, not just domestic dogs. Go back to posting Christian music videos.

  260. 260
    Joe says:

    phoodoo- thorton is proof that humans and apes are related- at least his family, anyway.

  261. 261
    Joe says:

    Unguided evolution cannot explain canidae….

  262. 262
    Thorton says:

    Hey Joke, where’s that ID timeline? Maybe Poodoo can produce the data you can’t.

  263. 263
    Joe says:

    ID isn’t about timelines.

  264. 264
    Joe says:

    How can evolutionism verify its timelines? They can’t and that means it isn’t about science.

  265. 265
    Thorton says:

    ID isn’t about any details Joke. That’s the problem.

    ID is only about religious fanatics looking for any way to deny the scientific reality of evolution. You prove that every time you post.

  266. 266
    bornagain77 says:

    So Thorton you see no problems with the fact that one of Dawkins’ supposed ‘greatest examples’ of macro-evolution in Dog breeding is found to be through ‘no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels’?

    And why does this no bother you Thorton? If you were honest to the empirical evidence you would admit that this is a severe problem for your claims. But you hurl insults and pretend that is not the devastating blow that it is.

    This does not reflect well on your personal integrity Thorton

  267. 267
    Joe says:

    Nice projection timmy as evolutionism is void of details. There isn’t any scientific reality to evolutionism.

    At least ID has a scientific methodology. Perhaps some day evolutionsim will come up with that much.

  268. 268
    Thorton says:

    batspit77

    So Thorton you see no problems with the fact that one of Dawkins’ supposed ‘greatest examples’ of macro-evolution in Dog breeding is found to be through ‘no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels’?

    And why does this no bother you Thorton?

    The anti-science lies and horsecrap vomited up by the likes of Gerbil Luskin and the DI tend not to bother me batspit. Except maybe to make my side hurt from laughing.

  269. 269
    Joe says:

    timmy, it’s time to change your diaper and take a nap. 😛

  270. 270
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    At least ID has a scientific methodology.

    It’s just sooper-dooper secret and the IDiots can’t tell anybody. They can’t even demonstrate it. Got it. 🙂

  271. 271
    Joe says:

    And yet we have told you all about it. I have posted it several times in the last few days.

    Just because you are a willfully ignorant ass doesn’t mean anything, timmy.

  272. 272
    Andre says:

    So my observation that an increase in genetic information is the barrier to macro evolution. I was right I do understand evolution. Wolfgang vindicated my claim. What prediction have you made Thornton that can be tested and verified? Mine was 🙂

  273. 273
    Astroman says:

    Joe, you’re obviously incapable of having a serious, honest discussion and what you quoted changes nothing except that you showed that some evolutionary biologists use the words accidental and mistakes. What you didn’t show is that you understand the definition of those words in the context of their use, and you are extremely far from showing that “evolution proceeds via accidents/ errors/mistakes” is “all” that evolutionary biologists say. It’s not surprising that your claims are rarely if ever supported by other ID proponents. Don’t be surprised if I also ignore you most or all of the time.

  274. 274
    Joe says:

    Astroman- you have nothing. I could go on and on but what is the use. Ernst Mayr agrees with me.

    What you didn’t show is that you understand the definition of those words in the context of their use,

    Go ahead and show me that I was wrong, then. Why are you such a coward? Your innuendos mean nothing.

    “Accidents aren’t really accidents wrt biology. Mistakes and errors aren’t really mistakes and errors wrt biology. Chance and happenstance aren’t really chance and happenstance wrt biology.”

    Remain an ignorant coward the rest of your life, astro.

  275. 275
    Joe says:

    Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is” page 281:
    On natural selection being a pressure or force

    What is meant, of course, is simply that a consistent lack of success of certain phenotypes and their elimination from the population result in the observed changes in a population

    On the role of chance:

    The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.

    “But chance phenomena isn’t really chance.”

    LoL!

  276. 276
    Joe says:

    Even James Shapiro thinks his “natural genetic engineering” arose by chance.

    I bet astro couldn’t find one evolutionary biologist who disagrees with me. And I am OK with that 😉

  277. 277
    tjguy says:

    Congregate @25 says in response to drc’s questions in 24:

    Those are excellent questions. If you want answers this may not be the place to ask them, though. The only thing ID can tell us is that they were all designed at some point.

    It is true, Congregate, that the evolutionists claim to have “answers” or shall we say “explanations”. We grant you that.

    Now if only they could show us that their ad hoc explanations were really true, wouldn’t that be something?!

    In this debate, neither side really has conclusive answers.

    But many of us believe the ID answers make much more sense than the other side’s “answers”.

  278. 278
    gpuccio says:

    Thorton:

    “Thanks though for at least attempting an answer and making the conversation a bit more interesting. That’s way more than the rest of the ID “scientists” here who absolutely refuse to discuss ID.”

    No problem. Ask when you like, I like to answer your questions. And I am fascinated by your interpretations of my answers.

  279. 279
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    So my observation that an increase in genetic information is the barrier to macro evolution.

    From the discoverer of DNA James Crick the definition of genetic information is:

    “Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein.”

    We have empirically observed natural processes creating completely new DNA sequences (through gene duplication w/ point mutations, indels, frame shifts, etc.) and new functionality. I’ve already posted some papers with examples.

    Your claimed “barrier” to macroevolution has been falsified.

    BTW it’s really stupid to claim evolution can’t produce new information because whatever a mutation can do it can undo.

    In one generation we get a mutation AAG –> AAC

    Next genetation we get AAC –> AAG

    If one mutation was a loss of information the other had to be a gain of information. This has been empirically observed too. They’re called back mutations.

  280. 280
    Thorton says:

    AAK! That was Francis Crick and James Watson.

    Not enough sleep celebrating the SF Giants win! 🙂

  281. 281
    Joe says:

    thorton:

    We have empirically observed natural processes creating completely new DNA sequences (through gene duplication w/ point mutations, indels, frame shifts, etc.) and new functionality. I’ve already posted some papers with examples.

    Then cars are natural and run via natural mechanisms. Or perhaps thorton is just an equivocating coward.

  282. 282
    Joe says:

    “Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein.”

    And unguided evolution cannot account for that. You lose.

  283. 283
    Joe says:

    BTW “new” information is not an increase in information.

  284. 284
    Thorton says:

    Joke we already know you’re an ignorant childish moron with nothing at all to add. No need to keep demonstrating the fact.

  285. 285
    Joe says:

    Nice cowardly projection, timmy. We all know that is all you have.

  286. 286
    tjguy says:

    Andre @44 suggest this link:http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

    It is a refutation of Theobald’s 29 evidences for Macroevolution that Keiths takes as gospel truth.

    Below I have copied one significant section that deals with nested hierarchies.

    PREDICTION 2: A “NESTED” HIERARCHY OF SPECIES

    As you can see from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as “groups within groups.” This nested hierarchical organization of species contrasts sharply with the continuum of “the great chain of being” and the continuum predicted by Lamarck’s theory of organic progression. Few other natural processes would predict a nested hierarchical classification. Real world examples that cannot be classified as such are elementary particles (which are described by quantum chromodynamics), the elements (whose organization is described by quantum mechanics and illustrated by the periodic table), the planets in our Solar System, books in a library, or specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc. That certain organisms merely are similar to each other is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern that satisfies the macroevolutionary process is very specific.

    The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:

    If universal common ancestry is true, then organisms will be classifiable in a nested hierarchy.

    Organisms are classifiable in a nested hierarchy.

    It is not a corollary of the hypothesis of common descent that organisms will have features by which they can be classified as groups within groups. Common descent can explain or accommodate nested hierarchy (though not without difficulty in the specific case of Neo-Darwinism), but it does not predict it. There are mechanisms of descent from a common ancestor that would yield a different pattern. If common descent can yield either nested hierarchy or something else, then the presence of nested hierarchy does not count as evidence of common descent.

    Hunter puts it this way:

    It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution. (Hunter, 108.)

    Even a mechanism of descent that includes branching events does not ensure a nested pattern. As ReMine explains:

    The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them. (ReMine, 343.)

    Evolution does not predict a hierarchical pattern. Simple processes of loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit such a pattern. Since hierarchical patterns (such as cladograms or phenograms) are not predicted by evolution they are not evidence for evolution. (ReMine, 444.)

    In fact, nested hierarchy raises some difficult issues within a Neo-Darwinian framework. As Michael Denton observes:

    In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed. There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process. If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology[4] and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature’s divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity. (Denton 1986, 136-137.)

    The notion that the nested hierarchy of organisms is incompatible with creation is based, not on science, but on the unprovable theological assumption that if God created life he would do it in some other way. As biologist Leonard Brand explains:

    The hierarchical arrangement of life illustrated in Fig. 9.6 has been used by Futuyma (1983) and others as evidence that life must have evolved. They believe that if life were created, the characteristics of different organisms would be arranged chaotically or in a continuum, not in the hierarchy of nested groups evident in nature. If we think of that concept as a hypothesis, how could it be tested? Actually, to state how a Creator would do things and then show that nature is or is not designed that way is an empty argument. Such conjecture depends on the unlikely assumption that we can decide what the Creator would be like and how he would function. (Brand, 155.)

    It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness. It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology. (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.) The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution. Accordingly, “[i]t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.)

    Dr. Theobald’s claim that “specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.” cannot be classified in a nested hierarchy requires elaboration. In terms of mere classification, it is incorrect. Buildings and vehicles have both been used as examples of nesting (Ridley 1993, 52-54; Fastovsky and Weishampel, 51-53; Brand, 165-166). According to Mark Ridley:

    Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically. Chairs, for instance, are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, then according to their colour, by date of manufacture, and so on. The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution. (Ridley 1985, 8.)

    Thanks Andre!

    It may not be conclusive, but it sure does show that there is another side to this that Keiths is ignoring. Besides the small problem that nested hierarchies are not consistent throughout life, Keiths’s argument mainly comes down to what he thinks the Creator would or would not do.

    Much of his argument is based on these assumptions as has been previously pointed out by many. ergo – his argument is weak and unsupportable.

    What more need be said?

    I only copied a small section. The whole article is worthy of your time to read, even though it is long.

  287. 287
    logically_speaking says:

    Thorton says,

    “If one mutation was a loss of information the other had to be a gain of information. This has been empirically observed too. They’re called back mutations”.

    Like I said on another thread evolution goes forward unless it goes back, haha.

    This along with all the other barriers to evolution that thorton tries to sweep under the carpet, is a huge problem.

  288. 288
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    Fossil and genetic data PaV. The data that independently produces the twin nested hierarchies of life. The data that shows the canidae relationships going back 50 MY and the extant canids back 10 MY.

    And your point, Thorton? We know that life has changed over time. That doesn’t prove that Darwin was right. It proves that life changed over time.

    Do you remember the original question? You asked about a “barrier”? Do you remember that? Do you remember my answer that it has to do with “viability”?

    This is what we know: that presently, i.e., among extant species, there is a diversity of forms. We also know that the fossil record also records diversity of forms. The diversity of forms, rather, its pattern, is not in accord with Darwinian expectations. Neither is there anywhere’s close to enough intermediate forms found in the record to support Darwin’s theory. The fossil record is “episodic.” Remember, “punctuated equilibria” a la Gould.

    You have neither acknowledged the fact that there is a limit to the plasticity of dogs, nor that fact that humans were able to do, via ‘artificial selection’, what ‘natural selection’ could not.

    Simple question: were Great Danes and Chihouhas brought about via supposed neo-Darwinian mechanisms?

    Try to be honest. We’re tired of your insults.

  289. 289
    Thorton says:

    PaV

    You have neither acknowledged the fact that there is a limit to the plasticity of dogs, nor that fact that humans were able to do, via ‘artificial selection’, what ‘natural selection’ could not.

    Sorry PaV but you’re still an idiot. Limited genetic variations in small population subsets through sexual selection over relatively few generations only has no bearing on the amount of genetic variations in large populations over thousands of generations due to the new genetic variability added by imperfect replication.

    You’re pretty much immune from learning anything about actual population genetics or any biological science it seems. You are also dumb enough to repeat the same Creationist PRATT “no transitional fossils”. There’s no hope for such willful ignorance I’m afraid. Although I will give you props for claiming evolution is wrong because natural selection didn’t do what PaV the idiot demands it should have done. That was hilarious!

  290. 290
    keith s says:

    keiths, to Box:

    Suppose that the tables were turned, and ID predicted the ONH a trillion times better than unguided evolution. Everyone reading this — including you — knows perfectly well that in that situation you would not be saying, “Oh, that’s a trivial point. We can’t conclude anything from that.” You’d be shouting it from the rooftops and saying that it vindicated ID.

    Besides that bit of hypocrisy, you are failing to notice the enormous assumptions you are making in favor of the ID hypothesis: namely, that a designer exists, and that he/she/it has the capabilities necessary to produce proteins, the genetic code, molecular machines, and so on.

    The double standard is obvious. You are assuming those things on behalf of ID while forbidding any such assumptions on behalf of unguided evolution.

    How can it not be obvious to you that you are putting your finger on the scales?

    The fact that my conclusion upsets you is no excuse. The truth is not obligated to conform to your wishes.

    Box:

    If the tables were turned. If ID predicted ONH, but was completely unable to explain the existence of even one instance of CSI – let alone proteins, OOL, genetic code, molecular machines and the information to build animals – while unguided evolution’s capability of producing CSI was beyond any doubt.

    I would NOT be shouting from the rooftops.

    [Emphasis added]

    Turn the tables back, substituting ID for unguided evolution in the bolded phrase, and the problem becomes apparent:

    while a designer’s capability of producing CSI was beyond any doubt.

    Humans exist and are capable of producing specified complexity, but we don’t know that a Designer exists (or existed) who was capable of producing the diversity and complexity of life.

    In my argument, I give ID the benefit of the doubt by assuming, for the sake of argument that a Designer existed, that he/she/it had the required capabilities, that he/she/it chose to guide evolution, and that there were no barriers preventing her/him/it from succeeding.

    Those assumptions are all made arguendo, for the benefit of ID, so that we can see what predictions it would make if it were true. No complaints from you. Yet when I make corresponding assumptions on behalf of unguided evolution, merely for the sake of argument, you object that I’m being unfair to ID!

    It’s an absurd double standard. On a level playing field, ID loses — so naturally, you want to tilt the playing field. That’s not how it works in science.

    The Rain Fairy is a ridiculous explanation for the weather, and when you take off the religious blinders, you can see that ID is just as bad.

  291. 291
    keith s says:

    tjguy,

    I’m glad you posted that excerpt from Ashby Camp’s “refutation” of Theobald, because most of it supports my argument rather than weakening it.

    Details to follow.

  292. 292
    Collin says:

    Joe, you said this, about Stonehenge:

    “Basically it was determined that nature couldn’t have done it and it shows signs of work and counterflow.”

    Please elaborate. Amongst all the fluff of this whole thread, this is the diamond in the rough. I agree with Rich that this is what we should be talking about. How do we know something is designed? What is the definition of “signs of work” and what is “counterflow.” That is really interesting to me.

  293. 293
    Joe says:

    Collin, it isn’t a secret as to how they determined Stonehenge was designed. As I said there isn’t any known process by which nature could have done it. Glaciers have been posited, considered and dismissed.

    As for “work” read the following”: Artifact

    And for “counterflow” you have to read “Nature, Design and Science” by Del Ratzsch.

    We basically look for tool marks and such. With Stonehenge there are, for example, mortise and tenon joints.

  294. 294
    Joe says:

    tiny timmy:

    Limited genetic variations in small population subsets through sexual selection over relatively few generations only has no bearing on the amount of genetic variations in large populations over thousands of generations due to the new genetic variability added by imperfect replication.

    And your cowardly bloviations have no bearing on reality.

    Natural selection has proven to be impotent, just like you.

  295. 295
    Joe says:

    keith s:

    I’m glad you posted that excerpt from Ashby Camp’s “refutation” of Theobald, because most of it supports my argument rather than weakening it.

    LoL! Everything that refutes keith s is actually support for him. What a deluded twerp

  296. 296
    keith s says:

    Collin, to Joe:

    How do we know something is designed? What is the definition of “signs of work” and what is “counterflow.” That is really interesting to me.

    Collin,

    Joe is the last guy you’d want to ask about this. His knowledge of design is almost as poor as his knowledge of evolution.

    “Counterflow” is a term used by Del Ratzsch in his book Nature, Design and Science.

    He defines it thus:

    counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely.

  297. 297
    Joe says:

    LoL! I know more about evolution than keith s ever will. And I know more about detecting design than most people.

    And I told Collin where to read about counterflow. Obviously keith s requires attention and will do anything to get it.

  298. 298
    Joe says:

    Stonehenge embodies counterflow. keith s doesn’t understand that and he thinks stonehenge is a natural formation. Then again he thinks that unguided evolution doesn’t predict transitional forms.

  299. 299
    keith s says:

    Good grief, Joe. Collin asked you what counterflow was, not where he could read about it. I gave him the definition and explained where it originated.

  300. 300
    Joe says:

    Good grief, keith s, counterflow is thoroughly explained in the book. The definition is the conclusion of the explanations. If you read the definition in isolation is doesn’t have the same effect. The book explains what Collin is looking for.

  301. 301
    keith s says:

    Joe:

    Good grief, keith s, counterflow is thoroughly explained in the book. The definition is the conclusion of the explanations.

    No, Joe. The definition is preliminary to the explanations, which is why it appears on page 5 in a chapter called Design Preliminaries.

    Another hole in your foot.

    Okay, now back to ignoring you.

  302. 302
    Joe says:

    The explanation for counterflow starts on page 4 and continues on page 5.

    Another hole in your head.

    I will keep correcting your obvious ignorance, keith s.

  303. 303
    Joe says:

    Unlike keith s, I have the book in question.

  304. 304
    Joe says:

    Then after counterflow is defined (page 5), he discusses it for 11 more pages.

  305. 305
    Joe says:

    OK so first Del explains counterflow, then defines it and then discusses it.

    keith s with another hole in his head

  306. 306
    william spearshake says:

    Words of wisdom from Joe (banned for posting porn) Gallien:

    And your cowardly bloviations have no bearing on reality.
    Natural selection has proven to be impotent, just like you.”

    “LoL! Everything that refutes keith s is actually support for him. What a deluded twerp”

    “Another hole in your head.
    I will keep correcting your obvious ignorance, keith s.”

    “keith s with another hole in his head”

    “Nice cowardly projection, timmy. We all know that is all you have.”

    “Then cars are natural and run via natural mechanisms. Or perhaps thorton is just an equivocating coward.”

    “Go ahead and show me that I was wrong, then. Why are you such a coward? Your innuendos mean nothing.”

    “Remain an ignorant coward the rest of your life, astro.”

    “Just because you are a willfully ignorant ass doesn’t mean anything, timmy.”

    “timmy, it’s time to change your diaper and take a nap. ”

    “phoodoo- thorton is proof that humans and apes are related- at least his family, anyway.”

    And this is just in the last fifty comments or so. Your parents must be very proud of the child you have become.

  307. 307
  308. 308
    Joe says:

    William spearedbrain the liar spews again! It’s funny how liars always try to support each other

  309. 309
    william spearshake says:

    Joe, prove me wrong with evidence rather than making unfounded accusations. Or am I incorrect that you were banned fro TSZ for posting graphic pornography?

  310. 310
    Joe says:

    I have never known you to be correct. Why don’t YOU post the evidence? I know I did NOT post any porn and I know that you bare a sniveling coward.

  311. 311
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    I have never known you to be correct. Why don’t YOU post the evidence? I know I did NOT post any porn

    Why don’t you post the same “tunie” picture here that got you banned at TSZ and let the readers judge for themselves?

    You won’t because you’re lying again and everyone knows it.

  312. 312
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ tiny timmy! I am so happy that this upsets you years after the fact.

    I won’t post it here because I respect this blog. I don’t have any respect for Lizzie and her minions. And just because I won’t post it does not mean it was porn. You are just a little-minded imp and obviously proud of it

  313. 313
    william spearshake says:

    Joe, if you had any respect for this blog, you would disappear from it.

  314. 314
    Joe says:

    I don’t have any respect for you so go hang yourself

  315. 315
    Thorton says:

    Joe’s biggest problem is he has no respect for himself. That’s why he’s an obese foul-mouthed troll.

  316. 316
    Joe says:

    Well timmy, unlike you I have never been booted from malls for soliciting sex in men’s rooms

  317. 317
    william spearshake says:

    Joey Porn: “I don’t have any respect for you so go hang yourself”

    Being the gentleman that my parents brought me up to be, after you.

  318. 318
    Joe says:

    As for foul-mouthed-are you really that unaware of yourself?

  319. 319
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    I have never been booted from malls for soliciting sex in men’s rooms

    You’re bragging because you haven’t been caught yet when you solicit sex in men’s rooms?

    You may want to rethink that one Chubs.

  320. 320
    Joe says:

    william liar- I understand that you have mental issues. What I don’t understand is why you are proud of it

  321. 321
    Thorton says:

    Everyone take a good look at Joe Gallien, ID-Creationism’s finest spokesman.

    Are you happy with the way he represents you?

  322. 322
    Joe says:

    No, timmy, only losers like you solicit sex. You’re stupid enough to get caught

  323. 323
    Joe says:

    Everyone take a look at tiny timmy Horton- loser extraordinaire. Do not let your children grow up to be like it.

  324. 324
    william spearshake says:

    Joey: “william liar- I understand that you have mental issues. What I don’t understand is why you are proud of it”

    OK. Barry, And Gordo, you make a point of hauling people on the carpet for calling someone a liar without proof. Is this policy a double standard, or does it not apply to ID proponents?

  325. 325
    Joe says:

    thorton, I will do for ID what Madeline Murray O’Hare did for atheism. And it will be enjoyable.

  326. 326
    Joe says:

    William the cowardly liar can dish it out but he cannot take it.

    Pathetic.

  327. 327
    Thorton says:

    Joke

    I will do for ID what Madeline Murray O’Hare did for atheism. And it will be enjoyable.

    You mean be an obnoxious ass until someone has enough of your mouth and murders you? I can hardly wait.

  328. 328
    william spearshake says:

    Joey: “William the cowardly liar can dish it out but he cannot take it.”

    Barry and Gordo, I think that an intervention might be necessary. I really hate to see the challenged make a fool of themselves.

  329. 329
    News says:

    Ending the thread is in progress.

    The bar is now closed.

  330. 330
    keith s says:

    News,

    Ending the thread is in progress.

    Why?

  331. 331
    News says:

    Quite a few offensive comments to be deleted.

  332. 332
    News says:

    While I figure out how to stop comments in this version of WordPress, it would be very inadvisable to post anything an old Canadian lady might not approve of. She does know how to delete users, and has deleted several.

  333. 333
    Mung says:

    Well News, no one really believes those offensive comments were intelligently designed, right?

  334. 334
    Mung says:

    And it cannot be pure coincidence that the offensive comments in this thread fit neatly into an objective nested hierarchy that can be best explained by unguided evolution.

  335. 335
    Mung says:

    So over at TSZ keiths gave his OP the following title:

    Things That IDers Don’t Understand, Part 1 — Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent

    But then he goes on to admit that ID is compatible with common descent. So what bomb, keiths?

  336. 336
    Box says:

    Keith 289,

    Keith: Humans exist and are capable of producing specified complexity, but we don’t know that a Designer exists (or existed) who was capable of producing the diversity and complexity of life.

    True. We weren’t there. We can only infer design as best explanation.
    Allow me to point out that the existence of unguided evolution – or more specifically “natural selection” – as an CSI-producing and life-molding force is also contested. It may come as a shock for you, but there are ppl here who hold that it doesn’t do anything. “Things change and survivors survive”. Eric Anderson once said that natural section means nothing more than “stuff happens”.

    But to get back at VJTorley’s main criticism of your argument; that is if I understand him correctly:
    The race for the best explanation of life cannot be decided by the question “which theory explains ONH?”. There are far more basic facts to be explained, which – until now – unguided evolution completely fails to do.

  337. 337
    keith s says:

    Mung,

    You tried that gambit two years ago at TSZ. and it didn’t work out very well for you.

    My response still applies:

    Suppose you’re right, Mung, and ID isn’t incompatible with the evidence. It’s just trillions of times less compatible than unguided evolution. How does that help your case? Which theory should we prefer, the crappy one (ID) or the one that explains things trillions of times better (unguided evolution)?

    I don’t blame you for trying, though. Nobody’s been able to put a dent in my argument, so why not try everything? Desperate measures for desperate times.

  338. 338
    Thorton says:

    Box

    There are far more basic facts to be explained, which – until now – unguided evolution completely fails to do.

    Can you please list the basic facts that ID has explained through positive evidence and not just by assertion? Shouldn’t take you very long.

  339. 339
    Joe says:

    And still no theory of evolution…

  340. 340
    Joe says:

    keith s:

    Nobody’s been able to put a dent in my argument,

    No one can put a dent in your thick skull but your argument has been proven to be garbage.

  341. 341
    Joe says:

    tiny timmy:

    You mean be an obnoxious ass until someone has enough of your mouth and murders you?

    She was murdered for money you ignorant ass.

  342. 342
    Mung says:

    keiths doesn’t know what a gambit is.

  343. 343
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    Suppose you’re right, Mung, and ID isn’t incompatible with the evidence.

    There’s no reason to “suppose” that I am right. And if it is in fact true, then your entire post was nonsense from the beginning.

    So instead of “supposing” this or that, you should be denying it, since that is the central claim you made about ID.

    Intelligent Design either is or is not compatible with the evidence for common descent. You just don’t get to argue that Intelligent Design is and is not compatible with the evidence for common descent and be taken seriously. Not here at UD, anyways.

    This isn’t “the skeptical zone.”

    cheers

  344. 344
    Box says:

    Thorton #337,

    One of the more basic facts about life is that it is chock full with information – CSI. In case you haven’t noticed, ID is pretty good at explaining the origin of information. There is an abundance of positive evidence that intelligence is a more than able cause.
    Meanwhile unguided evolution cannot produce a single instance of CSI.
    Does that answer your question?

  345. 345
    keith s says:

    Poor Mung tries to change the subject, but can’t even get the new topic right:

    keiths doesn’t know what a gambit is.

    Merriam-Webster:

    1: a chess opening in which a player risks one or more pawns or a minor piece to gain an advantage in position

    2 a (1) : a remark intended to start a conversation or make a telling point (2) : topic

    b : a calculated move : stratagem

    He may have a point, though. “Calculated move” doesn’t really apply to Mung’s actions.

  346. 346
    Joe says:

    The subject is your ignorance, keith s. And we have beaten that to death.

  347. 347
    keith s says:

    Hey UDers,

    Everyone celebrate! Mung has shown that ID isn’t incompatible with the evidence — it’s just trillions of times worse than unguided evolution.

    Wait… why isn’t anyone smiling?

  348. 348
    Joe says:

    Everyone really celebrate! keith s is proud of his ignorance and cowardice.

    Too bad for keith s that Darwin refuted his “argument” back in 1859.

  349. 349
    Thorton says:

    Box

    One of the more basic facts about life is that it is chock full with information – CSI. In case you haven’t noticed, ID is pretty good at explaining the origin of information.

    Actually no, no one has noticed how ID explains the origin information in life forms beside the unsupported assertion “the Magic Designer did it”.

    There is an abundance of positive evidence that intelligence is a more than able cause.

    Not in biological life there isn’t.

    Meanwhile unguided evolution cannot produce a single instance of CSI.

    Evolution produced all the lifeforms we now see. That’s what all the evidence indicates. You should read up on it sometime. Besides, even if evolution was falsified tomorrow that wouldn’t make ID win by default. Life could have come from another currently unknown natural process. That’s why science requires positive evidence for claims.

    Does that answer your question?

    No, you were asked for ID explanations with positive evidence. Honestly I wasn’t surprised to get the standard ID hamd waving non-answer.

  350. 350
    Joe says:

    timmy:

    Not in biological life there isn’t.

    Yes, there is and plenty of it. And your position has nothing to say about it.

    Evolution produced all the lifeforms we now see.

    Not unguided evolution, that is for sure.

    That’s why science requires positive evidence for claims.

    And you have nothing, not even a testable hypothesis. And I know that bothers you.

  351. 351
    Thorton says:

    keith s

    He may have a point, though. “Calculated move” doesn’t really apply to Mung’s actions.

    To be fair, as a Creationist Mung may only be skilled in pigeon chess

  352. 352
    william spearshake says:

    News: “While I figure out how to stop comments in this version of WordPress, it would be very inadvisable to post anything an old Canadian lady might not approve of. She does know how to delete users, and has deleted several.”

    Well, we will certainly miss Joe.

  353. 353
    Mung says:

    A typical keiths gambit. He’s lost the opening, so now he resorts to definition deficit disorder.

    So after having declined the opening gambit, keiths moves to attempt to improve his position:

    keiths:

    Since the time of the Dover trial in 2005, I’ve made a hobby of debating Intelligent Design proponents on the Web, chiefly at the pro-ID website Uncommon Descent. During that time I’ve seen ID proponents make certain mistakes again and again. This is the first of a series of posts in which (as time permits) I’ll point out these common mistakes and the misconceptions that lie behind them.

    So what is the common mistake that ID proponents make again and again that keiths seeks to address in his OP, and what is the misconception that lies behind it?

    Is it that ID is not compatible with the evidence for common descent?

    Well, no. keiths has already abandoned that opening line.

  354. 354
    keith s says:

    Box:

    True. We weren’t there. We can only infer design as best explanation.

    Except that it’s not the best explanation. It’s trillions of times worse than unguided evolution.

    Allow me to point out that the existence of unguided evolution – or more specifically “natural selection” – as an CSI-producing and life-molding force is also contested.

    Of course it is! That’s why we’re having this conversation.

    It may come as a shock for you, but there are ppl here who hold that it doesn’t do anything. “Things change and survivors survive”. Eric Anderson once said that natural section means nothing more than “stuff happens”.

    It’s astonishing that people are still making the tautology argument in the year 2014, isn’t it? Barry Arrington, Eric Anderson, William J Murray and phoodoo have all attempted to defend it. See this thread for a rebuttal. The best part is when phoodoo and WJM slink away because they can’t explain why fitness is tautological if batting averages are not.

    But to get back at VJTorley’s main criticism of your argument; that is if I understand him correctly:
    The race for the best explanation of life cannot be decided by the question “which theory explains ONH?”. There are far more basic facts to be explained, which – until now – unguided evolution completely fails to do.

    I’ll say it again: you don’t get to invent imaginary barriers to unguided evolution. I can just as easily invent imaginary barriers to design.

    It’s up to you to demonstrate a real barrier. I’ve already explained to Vincent why Douglas Axe’s attempt fails.

    Can you do better?

  355. 355
    keith s says:

    Mung,

    Your desperation is showing.

    Come up with something substantive, and I’ll respond. Until then, you’re on the ignore list.

  356. 356
    Me_Think says:

    The best part is when phoodoo and WJM slink away because they can’t explain why fitness is tautological if batting averages are not.

    Batting average can come from batting alone. Your fitness can come from any number of imagined variables that lead to fitness

  357. 357
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    I encourage IDers to read these posts and, if they disagree, to comment here at TSZ. Unfortunately, dissenters at Uncommon Descent are typically banned or have their comments censored, all for the ‘crime’ of criticizing ID or defending evolution effectively.

    l

    …o

    …….l

  358. 358
    Mung says:

    keiths claims ID is not compatible with the evidence for common descent. This is the point of his OP at TSZ.

    I demonstrate how even keiths admits this claim is false, and keiths responds that I’ve not come up with anything substantive.

    whatever

  359. 359
    Mung says:

    The amusement factor should never be under-rated.

    The first two responses to the OP by keiths are by Joe Felsenstein. Even Joe F admits that “common design” can explain all the data.

  360. 360
    Me_Think says:

    keith s
    If you have 3 red cubes and 3 green balls on a platform and you tilt the platform, which do you think will fall off the platform more easily ? balls – right ? so if I say the color red holds an advantage over color green because the red didn’t fall off the platform, does it make sense?
    You are doing exactly that. Based on what survives, you make up a variable which you think increased the fitness of a species and claim that Natural selection works to ‘select’ the variable. In truth you have no idea which variable helps in survival of next generation, so tracing back the variable that you think helped a species to survive and linking it up as the advantageous variable makes zero sense.

  361. 361
    Mung says:

    keiths:

    Mung,

    Your desperation is showing.

    Come up with something substantive, and I’ll respond. Until then, you’re on the ignore list.

    keiths:

    The first misconception I’ll tackle is a big one: it’s the idea that the evidence for common descent is not a serious threat to ID.

    The evidence for common descent is not a serious threat to ID. Your move, keiths.

  362. 362
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ keith s:

    you don’t get to invent imaginary barriers to unguided evolution

    We don’t have to. It has proven to be impotent. It can’t even get beyond prokaryotes and that is given prokaryotes to start.

    And I am sure that bothers you

  363. 363
    Joe says:

    Unguided evolution is so impotent and useless no one can model it.

  364. 364
    Me_Think says:

    keith s
    If you have 3 red cubes and 3 green balls on a platform and you tilt the platform, which do you think will fall off the platform more easily ? balls – right ? so if I say the color red holds an advantage over color green because the red didn’t fall off the platform, does it make sense?
    You are doing exactly that. Based on what survives, you make up a variable which you think increased the fitness of a species and claim that Natural selection works to ‘select’ the variable. In truth you have no idea which variable helps in survival of next generation, so tracing back the variable that you think helped a species to survive and linking it up as the advantageous variable makes zero sense.
    p.s: What in blue blazes my posts are being moderated !

  365. 365
    Joe says:

    The best part is when phoodoo and WJM slink away because they can’t explain why fitness is tautological if batting averages are not.

    Your batting average argument exposed your ignorance of baseball. The best hitters are the more patient hitters- Ted, Wade, Tony Gwynn- and also OBP is more important that mere batting average.

    But yes, they are both after-the-fact assessments. However you cannot tell, just by looking at someone, if they will have a high BA or OBP or not.

    As for fitness it can relate to many different things- faster, slower, better sight, no sight, fat, thin, long, short, tall, hearing, no hearing, strong, weak- it’s a big whatever it happens to be.

    That isn’t how it goes with baseball. Batting averages, OBP, slugging- all well defined and measured.

    You lose, again.

  366. 366
    Box says:

    Keith:

    Except that it’s not the best explanation. It’s trillions of times worse than unguided evolution.

    There is little progress in our discussion.
    In post #7 I have listed objections against your argument. I stick by each and every one of them.

  367. 367
    Andre says:

    Amazing

    Barry invites you guys back into his house with welcome arms and what do you do? You crap all over furniture and then complain the place is dirty……

    Keith S is not here to learn or discuss, he is just here to anger people.

    Thornton has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and constantly belittling people should be a clear indication that truth is not even a though in his mind.

    Barry I’m not even sure why we should put up with the behaviour, provoking people until they retaliate and then telling them what good Christians they are is unacceptable…..

  368. 368
    Thorton says:

    Well that was right on schedule. It normally takes about a week of Creationists being exposed to actual scientific evidence and having to defend their nonsensical claims before they start crying for censorship again. Andre didn’t disappoint.

  369. 369
    Andre says:

    I’m not asking for censorship, I’m asking why should we tolerate your belittling tactics Thornton? You started it.

  370. 370
    Thorton says:

    I see Joke demonstrating his ignorance again. In the expression “survival of the fittest” the fittest aren’t defined as “those who survive”. The “fittest” are the portion of the population with a higher statistical probability of reproducing that the others. Not all of the fittest get to reproduce, not all of the less fit die with no offspring. “Fittest” does not equal “successfully reproduced” so there’s no tautology.

    Creationists have been using this same dumb PRATT argument for decades now and they’re still too slow to get it.

  371. 371
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    I’m not asking for censorship, I’m asking why should we tolerate your belittling tactics Thornton?

    I’ll believe you’re not a flaming hypocrite when you speak out again Joe Gallien posting his “soliciting for sex in the men’s room” insults, or Mapou with his. Until then you can STFU.

  372. 372
    bornagain77 says:

    Thorton, not to get in your personal business, but I’ve seen you post for a few years now, and you even managed to get banned from Dr. Hunter’s blog with your caustic behavior. Which was really hard for you to manage to do since he pretty much has/had the patience of Job with you for a long time.

    Just a suggestion, but perhaps if you would try to be a bit nicer to people, and not be so insulting of other people, perhaps, just perhaps, other people would not return the insults in kind?

    I’m not saying be a door mat to other people, but you might just be surprised that you get to stay around a while, instead of eventually being banned for being overly rude.

    Just a suggestion buddy 🙂

  373. 373
    phoodoo says:

    I have a little different take on Thorton. I think seeing what he writes is very useful for the evolution-ID debate. I mean what better advertisement could there be for the empty rhetoric of evolutionist thought than Thorton? He is the gift that just keeps giving.

    He is like Rob Ford. Just let him speak.

    The more he writes, the more people will say, Holy Cow, you mean this is what evolution supporters are? Omagain at TSZ is very similar. You want to see who has the better arguments-just let these guys write.

  374. 374
    Thorton says:

    batspit77

    not to get in your personal business

    Corny Hunter doesn’t ban people, he just keeps posts he doesn’t like in moderation. Some he still lets through. I don’t post there anymore because I got tired of him letting the filth-spewing Joe and Louis Savain have free run while censoring pro-science comments. Many places do ban users solely for a pro-science stance just like UD did, just like Fred Williams’ EvolutionFairyTale does, just like CARM still does. Censorship and double standards are a way of life for Creationist websites. We in the scientific community accept it.

    Tell you what – I’ll behave like an angel if you stop posting your two dozen 1000 word scroll-wheel-killing nonsensical screeds and holier-than-thou preaching in every thread. Your call.

  375. 375
    Andre says:

    Thronton

    Those are retaliations born from your belittling, like you Joe and Mapou are human and after a while of being belittled people will start hitting back at you….

    It is clear that you don’t really understand the term freedom of speech, it does not mean you may attack or assassinate people’s characters, but you’ve been doing it anyway.

    Make your case have it refuted or not and move on there is no need to hurt people’s feelings because you can’t win an argument.

  376. 376
    Andre says:

    Thronton

    Good example above,

    BA gives you some advice, you don’t have to take it but do you have to call him BATSPIT?

  377. 377
    Thorton says:

    Same question for you BA77 as for Andre – where was this moral outrage when Joe Gallien was posting his “soliciting sex in the men’s room” vile insults that even got News upset?

    You and KF both are huge flaming hypocrites in my book and in the book of many lurkers at AtBC.

  378. 378
    phoodoo says:

    Thorton,

    Please, please continue. Anything else brilliant you have on your mind?

  379. 379
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    Those are retaliations born from your belittling

    Bullshit Andre. Joe has been doing it all across the web for a decade. He even got fired from a job once for making physical threats from his company’s computer system. You personally have been called out on multiple verbal attacks, not just differences of opinion. If you want civility then start acting civil yourself Mr. Pot calling the kettle black.

  380. 380
    keith s says:

    tjguy quotes from Ashby Camp’s response to Theobald:

    It is not a corollary of the hypothesis of common descent that organisms will have features by which they can be classified as groups within groups.

    Exactly, which is why my argument works against guided evolution via common descent. Guided evolution is not subject to the same restrictions as unguided evolution. The latter will produce an objective nested hierarchy (ONH), but the former need not.

    There are mechanisms of descent from a common ancestor that would yield a different pattern. If common descent can yield either nested hierarchy or something else, then the presence of nested hierarchy does not count as evidence of common descent.

    Yes, which is why it counts as evidence for unguided evolution, where change is gradual and inheritance is primarily vertical.

    The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern.

    Fortunately, this doesn’t happen. Mutation rates are low enough and sequence conservation robust enough to avoid this problem. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a consensus ONH for the 30 major taxa.

    It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness. It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology.

    ReMine gets this completely wrong. I’ll respond to it in a separate comment.

    Dr. Theobald’s claim that “specially designed objects like buildings, furniture, cars, etc.” cannot be classified in a nested hierarchy requires elaboration. In terms of mere classification, it is incorrect. Buildings and vehicles have both been used as examples of nesting (Ridley 1993, 52-54; Fastovsky and Weishampel, 51-53; Brand, 165-166). According to Mark Ridley:

    Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically. Chairs, for instance, are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, then according to their colour, by date of manufacture, and so on. The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution. (Ridley 1985, 8.)

    Camp is confusing nested hierarchies with objective nested hierarchies. Here’s Theobald:

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

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

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

    tjguy:

    It may not be conclusive, but it sure does show that there is another side to this that Keiths is ignoring.

    No. As you can see from the above, Camp’s points don’t hurt my argument at all, and some of them even reinforce it.

    Keiths’s argument mainly comes down to what he thinks the Creator would or would not do.

    Not at all. My argument is a huge problem for ID, precisely because I do not assume what a designer would or would not do.

    Vjtorley understands this, which is why he is trying to add assumptions, not remove them. Unfortunately, that means that he has to find a way of justifying the added assumptions.

  381. 381
    Thorton says:

    phoodoo

    Anything else brilliant you have on your mind?

    Plenty of really neat science I can discuss but every time I bring it up you fling an insult and run screaming from the room.

    This place bills itself as “serving the intelligent design community” but no one can get a single answer to any questions about ID. “Serving” must mean giving you a convenient platform to fling poo at the evolutionary sciences you don’t understand.

  382. 382
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    I’m not denying that I too retaliate so here is an offer to you……

    I’ll be civil and I will make a conscious effort to be courteous to you do you accept my offer? Mudslinging contests are tiresome, good debate is awesome!

    What do you say Thornton? No more belittling or name calling? Can we call a truce on it?

  383. 383
    Thorton says:

    I’m good with a truce. I’d like nothing better that to just discuss the science. What are you going to do to keep potty-mouth Joe in check?

  384. 384
    Andre says:

    Well we can ask Joe but why don’t you do something unexpected and be nice to him….

  385. 385
    Thorton says:

    Sorry, no can do. Among the many people Joe has made threats to he once threatened to harm not just me but my family. It was years ago back on the old Internet Infidels board but I haven’t forgotten. Heaven help him if I ever meet the prick in person. Sorry if my anger over that incident still colors my views.

  386. 386
    Andre says:

    Well what led to this is what you have to ask? People don’t go to that kind of extremes unless there is some reason. I don’t agree with it in anyway and neither do I endorse it. The question however remains what happened that led something like this to happen? Are you entirely blameless? Is it only Joe’s fault?

  387. 387
    Thorton says:

    Like I said it’s not just me. Joe is an “internet tough guy” with a big mouth who’s made threats to many people. I can laugh at insults all day long – I even appreciate a good verbal zinger – but with my family he crossed the line. There’s a reason he has a 260+ page thread at AtBC recording his asshole behavior. Some think he’s a borderline psychopath. Don’t take it on my word, go over to AtBC and read some of the comments from hundreds of folks yourself.

  388. 388
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    So are you saying you are the victim of an internet bully?

  389. 389
    keith s says:

    Ashby Camp on Walter ReMine:

    It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness. It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology.

    ReMine’s idea makes no sense. He actually presented it at UD a few years ago, but that didn’t go very well.

    This was my response to his OP:

    Walter ReMine writes:

    The central claims of Message Theory –

    Life was reasonably designed to meet three simultaneous goals:

    1. Survival

    2. To look like the product of one designer (or unified design team acting together as one), and unlike the product of multiple designers acting independently.

    3. To resist all other explanations of origin.</i

    If these are the goals, then the designer isn’t doing very well:

    1. Survival.

    a. Mayflies die immediately after mating. Soldier ants sacrifice themselves in defense of the colony. The goal for an organism is not so much to survive as it is to get its genes into future generations. Survival can be a means toward that end, but the end itself is the transmission of genes, as the mayfly and ant examples show.

    b. 99.9 percent of all species have already gone extinct and today’s world is full of species that compete for resources and eat each other. How does this cohere with the idea that the designer wants all species to survive?

    2. To look like the product of one designer (or unified design team acting together as one), and unlike the product of multiple designers acting independently.

    The designer has done a bad job of this as well. For example, any minimally intelligent designer who wanted to give an impression of unified design would not fill niches in Australia with marsupials and equivalent niches in Europe and Asia with placentals. Nor would a designer with such a goal put cacti in American deserts, but create other succulents for equivalent deserts elsewhere in the world. There are many other examples like these.

    3. To resist all other explanations of origin.

    If this is a goal, the designer has failed miserably. The scientific community used to be overwhelmingly creationist. Now, based on the evidentiary “message” that the designer has purportedly sent, all but a few biologists have embraced modern evolutionary theory. That includes theistic scientists who would happily embrace a theory of design if the evidence supported it. Not a very effective “message”, is it?

    If none of its three claims survive scrutiny, Walter, then why should we accept Message Theory?

  390. 390
    Rich says:

    “371
    AndreOctober 30, 2014 at 10:40 pm
    Thronton

    Those are retaliations born from your belittling, like you Joe and Mapou are human and after a while of being belittled people will start hitting back at you….”

    Well, that was quite one sided. Four legs gooooood, two legs baaaaaaaad?

  391. 391
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    So are you saying you are the victim of an internet bully?

    I’m saying I don’t forgive people who make physical threats against my family even if the guy is a blustering impotent ass. Is that a hard concept to grasp? Maybe if it were your family you’d feel differently.

  392. 392
    Andre says:

    I agree with you it is uncalled for but some light on how it led to this might be good in resolving the matter… Did Joe just bully you for no reason? What would lead a man to a point of threatening another and his family? What was the catalyst for such a devious act?

  393. 393
    Thorton says:

    The catalyst is that Joe’s your basic garden variety asshole. To everyone who disagrees with him on anything. Insults and threat are all he knows. It’s a matter of public record, go read it for yourself. Thanks but there’s nothing that needs your help to fix.

    You told me something very personal about you, now I told you something very personal about me. We’re even.

  394. 394
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    So let us then be civil towards each other, perhaps that might inspire Joe to do the same.

  395. 395
    Thorton says:

    Already said I’m good with that. Let the science discussions begin!

    Just imagine, a science discussion at UD – there’s a first time for everything. 😉

  396. 396
    keith s says:

    Andre,

    If you’ve got the idea that Joe doesn’t lash out except when provoked, guess again.

    Here’s how he “introduced” himself to Jerry Coyne. Spend some time at Joey’s website and you’ll get a feel for his true character.

  397. 397
    Andre says:

    Thornton

    Ok so can we get your thoughts on this paper recently describing design as not a mere illusion but a certainty?

    http://phys.org/news/2014-07-f.....imple.html

    Can you propose any mechanism other than intelligence, that has the capability of solving an engineering problem?

  398. 398
    Andre says:

    Joe is his own man, I already said I don’t approve of it, and you will know that Joe and I have also disagreed, but there is a trick that you seem to be incapable of doing….. Know when to back off and know when to say sorry and know when to stand firm. It is totally ok to be wrong sometimes and to admit it makes you better than your opponent.

  399. 399
    keith s says:

    Box,

    There is little progress in our discussion.
    In post #7 I have listed objections against your argument. I stick by each and every one of them.

    And yet your objections fail, as I’ve demonstrated over and over.

    If you pit ID against unguided evolution on a level playing field, unguided evolution wins, hands down.

    Fighting the truth is nothing to be proud of, Box.

  400. 400
    Andre says:

    Keith S

    Please please please! Show us how an unguided processes manufactured a guided process to prevent unguided processes from happing…. Ignoring me does no make the problem go away!

    Please respond with your evidence please!

  401. 401
    keith s says:

    Andre,

    You have your very own thread at TSZ for this topic. I’m happy to discuss it with you there, but I’m not going to derail this thread.

    If you’re not willing to comment at TSZ, you’re out of luck.

  402. 402
    Andre says:

    Keith S it was never my choice nor agreed upon that I could only get the info from the other thread, that was your decision. I had no part in that.

    I am registered at TSZ but have been called all kinds of names there, so in principle I decided not to comment there anymore.

    Spend some time on the question and give it to me straight its not so hard…… and it is relevant even to this OP.

  403. 403
    Astroman says:

    Andre:

    “Those are retaliations born from your belittling, like you Joe and Mapou are human and after a while of being belittled people will start hitting back at you….

    It is clear that you don’t really understand the term freedom of speech, it does not mean you may attack or assassinate people’s characters, but you’ve been doing it anyway.

    Make your case have it refuted or not and move on there is no need to hurt people’s feelings because you can’t win an argument.”

    “Joe is his own man, I already said I don’t approve of it, and you will know that Joe and I have also disagreed, but there is a trick that you seem to be incapable of doing….. Know when to back off and know when to say sorry and know when to stand firm. It is totally ok to be wrong sometimes and to admit it makes you better than your opponent.”

    Andre, your double standards and lack of self-awareness are not doing you any favors. ID opponents are not perfect in their behavior, and are sometimes far from perfect, but if any ID proponent actually thinks that ID proponents are setting a better example of good behavior, they are deluded.

  404. 404
    Joe says:

    keiths:

    If you pit ID against unguided evolution on a level playing field, unguided evolution wins, hands down.

    Seeing that unguided evolution can’t explain anything that statement is pure BS. But that is all keith has

  405. 405
    Joe says:

    Astroman you are clueless. I hit back. I do not start these fights.

    Grow up

  406. 406
    Joe says:

    keith s, still clueless:

    If you’ve got the idea that Joe doesn’t lash out except when provoked, guess again.

    Here’s how he “introduced” himself to Jerry Coyne.

    LoL! Coyne has been attacking ID and IDists for years. He has proven that he is a wind-bag- just like you. Coyne has provoked IDists for years.

    keith s is an imbecile.

  407. 407
    Joe says:

    timmy the liar strikes again:

    Like I said it’s not just me. Joe is an “internet tough guy” with a big mouth who’s made threats to many people.

    Liar- calling out cowards is not the same as making threats. However, I am sure the cowards felt threatened.

  408. 408
    Joe says:

    timmy:

    In the expression “survival of the fittest” the fittest aren’t defined as “those who survive”.

    I didn’t say it was.

    The “fittest” are the portion of the population with a higher statistical probability of reproducing that the others.

    So you have observe the population over many generations. And even then it is as I said.

    Among the many people Joe has made threats to he once threatened to harm not just me but my family.

    Liar.

    It’s as if timmy just can’t help itself.

  409. 409
    Joe says:

    Darwin refuted the notion that unguided and gradual evolution predicts an objective nested hierarchy. keith s just hand-waves that refutation away.

  410. 410
    Joe says:

    So keith s is still saying that unguided evolution would not produce transitional forms because transitional forms would ruin an objective nested hierarchy.

    So either keith s is lying or he is just willfully ignorant.

  411. 411
    Joe says:

    Astroman- I treat people as they treat me and other IDists. That is a fact

  412. 412
    Astroman says:

    Joe, you’re proving my point.

  413. 413
    Joe says:

    Astromaqn, you have a point? Can you share it?

  414. 414
    Joe says:

    Astroman…

  415. 415
    Joe says:

    Astroman- was your point that when good people are attacked and provoked by lowlifes that they hit back?

    I agree that is OK.

  416. 416
    Me_Think says:

    @ Andre 393

    Thornton

    Ok so can we get your thoughts on this paper recently describing design as not a mere illusion but a certainty?

    http://phys.org/news/2014-07-f…..imple.html

    Can you propose any mechanism other than intelligence, that has the capability of solving an engineering problem?

    You don’t have to wait for his reply – I already know it : Iterative process can create complex processes and structure.
    P.S: Okay who ever is moderating, please stop moderating my posts.

  417. 417
    Thorton says:

    Andre

    Thornton

    Ok so can we get your thoughts on this paper recently describing design as not a mere illusion but a certainty?

    http://phys.org/news/2014-07-f…..imple.html

    Neither the overview nor the actual paper refer to any certainty of intelligent design.

    Can you propose any mechanism other than intelligence, that has the capability of solving an engineering problem?

    Yes. An iterative processes that involve many samples with random variations, a filtering process that keeps the best of the random samples and which uses those for the basis of the next iteration. Such a process produced this

    NASA evolved antenna design

    Evolution is such a process. The algorithm NASA used was based on the observed evolutionary mechanisms.

  418. 418
    Andre says:

    Thronton

    I don’t know if I should laugh or cry, really……

    Cry because this is hopeless, you still think matter not only made itself but that it can magically arrange itself…….

    Laugh because what you said was pure assumption…. Are you for real?

    So if you just leave stuff, stuff will happen? Good science right there then!

    Over and out!

  419. 419
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ thorton- the NASA evolved antenna is an example of intelligent design evolution. It has nothing to do with unguided evolution. The algorithm was NOT based on observed evolutionary mechanisms. thorton is either deluded, stupid or lying.

  420. 420
    Joe says:

    The antenna algorithm was guided towards a solution. The solution would never have been found if the algorithm wasn’t written specifically to find it.

    Genetic and evolutionary algorithms are search heuristics. Natural selection and drift are not.

  421. 421
    Vishnu says:

    Genetic algorithms are not analogous to blind watchmaker evolution. GAs are front loaded by intelligent designers with a tremendous amount of information in the fitness functions. They use random searches in a very constrained search space. Not to mention, they do this on a computer that contains a fantastic amount of function complex specificity that was designed by intelligent humans.

    One might make a case that this happens in nature within organism that are already highly specified, but this cannot answer OOL nor the “emergence” of the protein families and various epigenetic factors that exist.

    No, GAs are examples intelligent design evolution not blind watchmaker evolution.

    Try again

  422. 422
    Joe says:

    Thank you Vishnu- another voice of reason is always welcome

  423. 423
    Vishnu says:

    Joe, no problem.

    BTW, I am an engineer, and have used GAs many times in my career. They are useful because computers do one thing better than humans do: they compute algorithms rapidly (designed by humans, of course, to do so.) GAs never invent their own core algorithms. Algorithms may be modified by themselves or other algorithms, but they don’t invent themselves. The initial conditions are setup by intelligent humans, the fitness functions are programmed by intelligent humans. Toward any particular goal (which is the purpose of GAs), to the degree where algorithms are less specified by the programmer than they could be, selection must be done manually by an intelligent human.

    GAs are examples intelligent design evolution not blind watchmaker evolution. Blind watchmaker evolution has no goals and no foresight.

  424. 424
    william spearshake says:

    Here is a summary of Joey G.’s comments on this thread.

    http://uncommondescentmyass.bl.....n.html?m=1

    I think a KF style correction is called for.

  425. 425
    Joe says:

    Vishnu, I have also worked with GAs. We tried a few to program FPLAs. That was back in the 90s.

    Goal-oriented searches are the antithesis of natural selection. But just because they are called “evolutionary” or “genetic” algorithms evos think the simulate unguided evolution. That and someone actually wrote that they simulate natural selection. Whoever wrote that was obviously not schooled in evolution.

  426. 426
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ william419- just look at what I was responding to. Only a coward posts one side of the equation and here you are.

    Thank you

  427. 427
    PaV says:

    Thorton:

    Limited genetic variations in small population subsets through sexual selection over relatively few generations only has no bearing on the amount of genetic variations in large populations over thousands of generations due to the new genetic variability added by imperfect replication.

    This is your view of things, and nothing more.

    Here’s a review of Lonnig’s recent book on dog geneology.

    A couple of quotes:

    As to phylogeny:

    Lönnig continues with an in-depth discussion of the taxonomy of the Canidae (the family that includes the dogs), extant as well as extinct subfamilies. He focuses on the phylogeny of these creatures, considering especially the paleontological record, including the subfamilies Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae. All three appear abruptly in the fossil record and almost simultaneously at that.

    This completely dismantles your ramblings above. And how will you react: with disgusting mockery and complete denial of the facts. How sad.

    About “viability” as a “barrier”:

    Biologist Dr. Werner Gieffers, retired from the Max Planck Institute of Breeding Research, comments:

    “On the basis of research of many experts in the relevant fields, Lönnig proves that the enormous variability of our domestic dogs essentially originated by reductions and losses of functions of genes of the wolf.”

    This process of ‘reduction’ in function can only go on so long. It ends with loss of viability—the offspring all die.

    Again, confirmation of what I’ve stated.

    What do you have? Nothing but your opinions. And a heart that is ready for Hades.

Comments are closed.