Larry Moran Was Channeling Ace Ventura

_{Barry Arrington
November 9, 2015

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

This will be my last post on this subject. To remind our readers:

1. I said I understand Darwinian.

2. Larry Moran said that I do not.

3. I challenged Larry to back up his claim. He could have done that by, for example, pointing to a statement I made about Darwinism that is false.

4. Larry put up two posts in response to my challenge.

5. In the first post he quibbled about the term “Darwinism.” Though in the end he admitted I have made it clear I am using the term as shorthand for Neo-Darwinism. Larry’s Grade: F

6. In the second post he said I erred when I wrote that Darwinists in the past said Darwinism predicts junk DNA. The problem is that it is very easy to find quotations from Darwinians such as Jerry Coyne doing just that. Larry’s Grade: F

Summary

After two posts Larry has been unable to back up his claim. It turns out he was just talking though his . . . well, follow this link to an Ace Ventura clip if you want to know what he was talking through: Ace Ventura

But what if Larry searches through all of my writings and comes up with an error in his third post in response to my challenge? Have I not ended this too soon? No. Larry asserted I do not understand Darwinism. The following logic ensues:

1. If Larry could not back up his assertion AT THE TIME HE MADE IT he was channeling Ace Ventura.

2. Larry could not back up his assertion at the time he made it. We know this, because after two follow up posts, he has still not backed up his assertion.

3. Therefore, Larry was channeling Ace Ventura.

UPDATE:

After two failed posts, Larry has put up a post on a completely unrelated topic, apparently giving up on even a pretense of backing up his claim. I expect to see him post an apology for his smear against me that, when challenged, he was unable to support (as soon as pigs fly).

Comments

mike1962: Do the Zachriels think that the Modern Synthesis is on par with meteorology with respect to explanatory power? bornagain: if you truly believe such a simplistic comparison to weather forecasting absolves Darwinian evolution of its failure to have a discernible foundation in science, you literally have no clue how science works. Dr JDD's argument was a fallacy of the same construct as the example from meteorology.Zachriel_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Prof Moran:
You’ve just heard something for the first time and quick-as-a-wink you assume that you know everything there is to say about genomes and population size. Without doing any homework, you’re prepared to dismiss it as a “just-so” story.
And herein lies the proof in the pudding of the true nature of the assumptive and borderline egotistical approach such evolutionary biologists as yourself, Prof Moran, tend to make. This is by no means the first time I have heard this theory to explain junk in small effective population sizes. In fact, every time this discussion comes up wd400 sticks that line in. Here is the point - I just do not buy it . I see no actual evidence for this, except correlative. All the evidence presented is circular and assumptive of UCD as are many apparent “strong evidences” of molecules-to-man evolution (and yes, I do understand and accept a form of evolution, so please do not play the game that if I reject “evolution”, I reject observable science as that is a fallacy. I even could accept a level of “junk” in the genome but again am open to both possibilities). Secondly, where have I stated that I know everything about genomes and population size? For a pretty intelligent man Prof Moran, you seem to lack the ability to think beyond a one-dimensional train of thought. I was merely hyperbolically demonstrating the point that anyone can “think up” an explanation for an observation that’s fits your favoured theory, but until you can test that it is just a story. For example*, we could find that between the years1992-1995 ice-cream consumption went up dramatically and we also could find that incidence of CJD went up dramatically too. This fits a theory I have prions are transmitted through milk and become activated when cold. This is strong evidence for my theory! But that would be a load of tosh without demonstrating these things in a repeatable manner (*note, this is a completely fabricated example, again, to merely illustrate a point). [and as a footnote: I know this is a trap you set so that when I state that this is not the first time I have heard this you can triumphantly proclaim that clearly I do not understand these things or lack the intelligence to engage in these topics as I do not understand basic premises of evolutionary biology thus justifying the ad hominem attack]
Why not read the definitive book on the subject
Here you are again – it is definitive, it is settled. You do reaslise don’t you, that many evolutionary biologists disagree on the exact mechanisms and processes we discuss here, don’t you? You do realise, that this was the point in my post? I have read enough of these books over the years to know how circular the arguments are and supported only by the assumptions they make (UCD, homology = direct descendence** , etc). I really do not have time to read another book when I have already read enough (atheistic) books on the matter to convince myself the evidence is lacking and the motive is clear.
Speaking of just-so stories, can you let me know some details about how the Intelligent Designer constructed mammalian genomes? Show me how this is the case experimentally. After all, that’s no more than you’re asking of your opponents.
Ah, Prof Moran now here is something I can agree with you on! I do not speak for the ID community. I am a scientist myself, a cell and molecular biologist and I understand the scientific method well. I am very different to many people here in that I do not refer to ID as a scientific method. I do believe the evidence and Occam’s razor demand that Design is an obvious and necessary conclusion, but it can only be studied if the assumption is true that it was done on a natural law and with existing materials and in a way that does not violate the natural law we can observe around each other. In other words, design ex nihilo can never be reduced to, nor studied by the scientific method. I am led to ex nihilo design as an inference from the science I can repeat and observe and also history, archaeology, philosophy and theology. But on the biological scientific method I personally believe this cannot be demonstrated. However, we can clearly demonstrate whether or not a naturalistic explanation has the power to explain origins including human, eukaryotic, multicellular, abiogenesis etc. However the evidence is very clear to me that the current naturalistic explanations completely fail and are laughable to assume dirt could turn into Mozart and even into the simpleton of myself typing on a computer designed by humans over the internet to someone 1000s of miles away who can appeal to logical deduction having studies molecular mechanisms that allow us to function (yet we can still not define life despite knowing so much more than our predecessors). Nothing x nothing = everything is not an equation that falls into the realm of logic. Furthermore, disorder and randomness does not result in order, direction, teleological processes and consciousness. Anyone honest with themselves can understand that. This is more than biology. Secondly, and I know you do not believe in supernatural events (as your own religion demands that you do not) and certainly that a Jesus character did in fact perform any miracles, but entertain me. Suppose you were able to transport an event from 2000 years ago to today. You were at a crowd of about 20,000 people where a boy brings to a man 5 small loaves of bread and this turns into feeding 20,000 humans with 12 basketfuls left over. For argument’s sake, let us assume that actually happened. Clearly, if this did happen, it is an ex nihilo creative event, correct? 5 loaves turning to say 50,000 is nothing but ex nihilo as you have 49,995 loaves from nothing. How do you think, if you took a sample of such a loaf, it would differ from one that you could make yourself? You could take it apart and see there was flour, water, salt, yeast. You could take what you can experiment with and show with heat and the right mixtures you could reproduce that loaf in a manner and bake your own from scratch. Your investigations would mean that you could confidently say you know how this bread was >i>made. Yet you would be wrong. Thus if design did occur ex nihilo and was a supernatural event, detection of how is not directly possible with the scientific method. This is essential to understand. The question is therefore not about showing how a designer could have done it, it is what evidence do we have that there is a designer at all. You a priori reject that as an option and as per the modern scientific method reject the idea that anything supernatural can be an explanation. Which is a fair point to a degree, because otherwise you can say “why does protein X interact with protein Y?” and someone can answer “because the flying spaghetti monster is channelling energy to it to do so!” however the evidence for a designer comes from various other means and it is clear that laws are in place so much so that we can be sure of regularity. Thus we can study things we can observe within the natural world and make conclusions about them. What we cannot do is go back to the beginning of time and see what happened ourselves. However, we can eliminate certain naturalistic explanations as plausible based on science we can do in the lab, math, probability, models etc. When we do those things we see the probabilistic issue of molecules to man is the giant elephant in the room that no evolutionist will take seriously because, you have no other naturalistic means of explaining everything around you so the deduction would have to be supernatural. And that is just not an option for you. A bad theory is better than no theory. However, I have no problem with faith. The issue is that dirt to consciousness requires a stupendous amount of faith.
(I hope you know where the term “just-so” story originated with respect to evolutionary speculations. It’s from the most famous paper in the field of evolutionary biology. The one that all undergraduates have to read if they’re taking a good course in the subject. It was written by two very famous evolutionary biologists who oppose Darwinism. Since you’re so familiar with the ideas of evolutionary biologists, you must have read it. Have you?)
I hope you know I was not using “just-so” in the way evolutionary speculations refer to it. I was using it in its original meaning. As in the English language. Not some cryptic insider meaning. **Example, something you have stated Prof Moran: “It’s not a genes unless the transcript has a biological function [I agreed, JDD]. One way to tell this is to show that the same region of DNA is conserved and transcribed in other mammals.” Now I agree here that if something is common among other species that it is more likely to be important. However by assuming that if it is not conserved it is unlikely to have function is the way your evolutionary paradigm a) self-purports its own results and b) slows down science. You state that the binding of polymerases and transcription machinery/transcription factors is sloppy and makes huge numbers of errors and accidental transcriptions. Many would disagree with you – but most of these are not evolutionary biologists so they do not appreciate the implication of tight control and regulation of transcription on the evolutionary paradigm. You realise that implication, thus you assert it is sloppy and binds all sorts of things that it should not bind. By no means is your view the confirmed or correct one. Yet you speak as though it is, much like everything else in evolutionary biology – things are “definitive”.Dr JDD_{November 11, 2015
November
11
Nov
11
11
2015
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

Is Michael Lynch a fan of Mutation-Driven Evolution?Mung_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
Why not read the definitive book on the subject: The Origins of Genome Architecture by one of the most famous evolutionary biologists alive today, Michael Lynch?
Sure. Can you guide me to where he says neutral evolution and genetic drift explains the origins of genome architecture?Mung_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Prof Moran Just so stories in regard to evolutionary speculations come from Rudyard Kipling published in 1902. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories Larry Moran and his fellow materialists trying to do some history revision again.Andre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
I’m happy to engage any one of you in a debate about junk DNA as long as I don’t have to start back at kindergarten level.
I passed kindergarten with flying colors. The paste was delicious.Mung_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD asks,
Further you seem to fall into the trap of many just so stories of assuming correlation equals causation. So you observe smaller effective population sized organisms have larger genomes. There is your correlation. Your causation is assumed to be easier accumulation of junk. Now show me how this is the case experimentally. Not with a fancy just so fairy tale story.
You've just heard something for the first time and quick-as-a-wink you assume that you know everything there is to say about genomes and population size. Without doing any homework, you're prepared to dismiss it as a "just-so" story. Why not read the definitive book on the subject: The Origins of Genome Architecture by one of the most famous evolutionary biologists alive today, Michael Lynch? After you read up on the topic, let me know if you still think it's a just-so story. Speaking of just-so stories, can you let me know some details about how the Intelligent Designer constructed mammalian genomes? Show me how this is the case experimentally. After all, that's no more than you're asking of your opponents. (I hope you know where the term "just-so" story originated with respect to evolutionary speculations. It's from the most famous paper in the field of evolutionary biology. The one that all undergraduates have to read if they're taking a good course in the subject. It was written by two very famous evolutionary biologists who oppose Darwinism. Since you're so familiar with the ideas of evolutionary biologists, you must have read it. Have you?)Larry Moran_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD says,
Here is another point of view – multicellular organisms are more complex and require greater regulation of their generic information so have more functional DNA with as of yet unidentified function. Alternatively the replication time is much longer in these which contributes to genome size. Heck, we could make up some fairy tale and it would have a six evidence to demonstrate the correlation causation explanation you present is true and not just a story assumed.
I'm happy to engage any one of you in a debate about junk DNA as long as I don't have to start back at kindergarten level. Read this and be prepared to address all these points. Then we can talk. If you dismiss any of them without doing any homework—as most of you do routinely—then find someone else to debate. Five Things You Should Know if You Want to Participate in the Junk DNA Debate Make sure you understand the Onion Test, which you can't do by reading ID blogs. Make sure you understand basic molecular biology and the fundamentals of developmental biology. Above all make sure you understand the biochemistry of DNA protein interactions if you are going to discuss the ENCODE results in an intelligent manner. Here's some more reading. I know you won't agree with anything I say but if you try to understand the facts and the theory we could have an intelligent debate. Anyone who's prepared to do a bit of homework is welcome to step forward and debate me on whether 90% of the human genome is junk. How many RNA molecules per cell are needed for function? Insulators, junk DNA, and more hype and misconceptions Functional RNAs? The apophenia of ENCODE or Pangloss looks at the human genome Is most of our DNA garbage? What did the ENCODE Consortium say in 2012? The Function Wars: Part I The Function Wars: Part II The Function Wars: Part III The Function Wars: Part IV UDEditors: "Anyone who's prepared to do a bit of homework is welcome to step forward and debate me on whether 90% of the human genome is junk." What a profoundly stupid thing to say. No one believes that. Many Darwinists used to before ENCODE. ID proponents predicted function would be ultimately found. The Darwinists were wrong. The ID proponents were correct. Larry, how can we even begin to debate you when you make Romper Room mistakes like this and don't even seen to have a grasp on the question we are discussing. Now, you go do your homework. See if you can catch up with the rest of us, and if you can, come and back and we will be happy to discuss it with you. Larry Moran_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, if you truly believe such a simplistic comparison to weather forecasting absolves Darwinian evolution of its failure to have a discernible foundation in science, you literally have no clue how science works. Unlike other overarching theories of science, Darwinian evolution has no demarcation/falsification criteria so as to delineate it as a true science instead of a pseudo-science:
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 “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 "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge “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. Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula Excerpt: Virtually all scientists acknowledge that mathematics is the real language of science. Every theory uses words to describe and postulate the theory, but the true test of a theory is numbers and mathematics. It is numbers and mathematical formulae that distinguish true science from hocus-pocus.,,, Every scientific theory that has been promoted to the status of being a scientific law has been quantified and/or embodied into one or more mathematical formulae that make accurate predictions. But no scientist has been able to derive any working formula from the Theory of Evolution and no one has been able to quantify its dictums. Millions of scientists have tried to quantify the Theory of Evolution and they have all failed to do so. http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php
Although Darwinian evolution does not have a rigid mathematical basis to test against so as to 'potentially' falsify it, (as other overarching theories of science have a mathematical basis to test against), (and that fact by itself should be more than enough to disqualify Darwinian evolution from being considered a proper science in the first place), there is also another way to gauge the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution as a true scientific theory. First off, Imre Lakatos tipped toed around the fact that Darwinism does not have rigid demarcation criteria, as other theories have, to test against so as to potentially falsify it,,,
A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
Although Lakatos tipped toed around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria, he was brave enough to state that a good scientific theory will make successful predictions in science and a bad theory will generate ‘epicycle theories’ to cover up embarrassing failed predictions:
Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[12] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”. Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.” ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory
Following Lakatos lead, Cornelius Hunter recently compiled a list of the failed predictions that go to the core of Darwinian thought and falsifies Darwinian evolution, as it were, 'from the inside out' :
Darwin's (failed) Predictions - Cornelius G. Hunter - 2015 This paper evaluates 23 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories. The paper begins with a brief introduction to the nature of scientific predictions, and typical concerns evolutionists raise against investigating predictions of evolution. The paper next presents the individual predictions in seven categories: early evolution, evolutionary causes, molecular evolution, common descent, evolutionary phylogenies, evolutionary pathways, and behavior. Finally the conclusion summarizes these various predictions, their implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, and how they bear on evolutionist’s claims about their theory. *Introduction Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Responses to common objections *Early evolution predictions The DNA code is not unique The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal *Evolutionary causes predictions Mutations are not adaptive Embryology and common descent Competition is greatest between neighbors *Molecular evolution predictions Protein evolution Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time *Common descent predictions The pentadactyl pattern and common descent Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships Biology is not lineage specific Similar species share similar genes MicroRNA *Evolutionary phylogenies predictions Genomic features are not sporadically distributed Gene and host phylogenies are congruent Gene phylogenies are congruent The species should form an evolutionary tree *Evolutionary pathways predictions Complex structures evolved from simpler structures Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved Nature does not make leaps *Behavior Altruism Cell death *Conclusions What false predictions tell us about evolution https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/home Why investigate evolution’s false predictions? Excerpt: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s (in)capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
Supplemental quotes:
"With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony." - Cornelius Hunter - Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition - June 17, 2014 "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter
Verse and Music:
Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.' Third Day - Kicking And Screaming - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3qe65VjZig
bornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Zechriels: Meteorology explains when it get hot. And it explains when it gets cold. It explains when it rains, and when it doesn’t rain. It explains when a storm heads towards land, and when it heads out to sea. No matter what the weather does, it’s consistent with the meteorological theory of weather! Do the Zachriels think that the Modern Synthesis is on par with meteorology with respect to explanatory power? I can think of some difference. For one thing we can see evolution of weather systems today, in real-time. There seems to be a lot less to take on faith here. When the modern synthesis posits that human brains evolved from something like a chimp brain via blind natural processes, how do we test that hypothesis to the degree that we test weather predictions?mike1962_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD: put species on a tree and distant related species have more different gene homology than closer. Except when they don’t. Meteorology explains when it get hot. And it explains when it gets cold. It explains when it rains, and when it doesn't rain. It explains when a storm heads towards land, and when it heads out to sea. No matter what the weather does, it's consistent with the meteorological theory of weather!Zachriel_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

LarTanner - you miss the point. What Andre means is that a theory that can tolerate whatever the observation is, is a theory of nothing. Not that evolution can explain everything around us! Example: put species on a tree and distant related species have more different gene homology than closer. Except when they don't. Or except where evolution has apparently occurred independently more than once for the same feature and converged molecularly. The answer given is "evolution predicts convergence" but that's a cop out. The point is, it doesn't matter if homology is observed or lack of homology. Evolution explains both and both cases are used as evidence for evolution. I have seen convergence used strongly as evidence for evolution. Yet so is homology. Which is the point - it can accommodate any observation.Dr JDD_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won't Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions - Casey Luskin - November 10, 2015 (Part 4) Excerpt: Just Kidding -- We Anticipated Function! When ENCODE's findings were published, many evolutionists reacted harshly to the conclusion that virtually our entire genome is functional. Others, however, realized that it would be sage advice to switch their bets, or simply place new ones alongside the old.,,, Thus, while it's true that, (through the years leading up to ENCODE), some scientists have proposed various functions for noncoding DNA, evolutionary theorists by and large predicted that the vast majority of the genome would turn out to be functionless. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/post-encode_pos100771.html
bornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Prof Moran: I think it was clear I was simply paraphrasing what we hear from many evolutionary biologists from one year to the next. It is funny in biological science when you hear people talk about their theories they rarely talk in absolutes. They are usually much more gracious to the competing theories as they recognise the limitations of the scientific method. This is in areas that can be tested as well. yet you claim that I and others like me cannot even get the theory of evolution correct. However you show your arrogance to assume your definition of evolutionary biology is the only correct one - this us evident in what you say. The truth is, even though what I say is paraphrasing, it does represent what we have heard over the years from actual evolutionary biologists. Now you may disagree with those evolutionary biologists but they are still that, and prolific in their field. Further you seem to fall into the trap of many just so stories of assuming correlation equals causation. So you observe smaller effective population sized organisms have larger genomes. There is your correlation. Your causation is assumed to be easier accumulation of junk. Now show me how this is the case experimentally. Not with a fancy just so fairy tale story. Here is another point of view - multicellular organisms are more complex and require greater regulation of their generic information so have more functional DNA with as of yet unidentified function. Alternatively the replication time is much longer in these which contributes to genome size. Heck, we could make up some fairy tale and it would have a six evidence to demonstrate the correlation causation explanation you present is true and not just a story assumed.Dr JDD_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
Is it wrong for me to assume that’s what you mean when you talk about Darwinism on this blog? Is it wrong for me to assume that’s what Barry Arrington means since he wrote the glossary entry?
Nope. We should have just stuck with Darwinism = Designer Substitute. The zero in Coke zero. No one believes neutral drift is capable of giving the appearance of design.Mung_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Virgil Cain says,
Larry, UD doesn’t speak for all IDists and I am not beholden to UD’s glossary. Grow up.
We were discussing Barry Arrington's version of Darwinism and whether he understands it. Try and keep up. I'll get to you later.Larry Moran_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Nice quotes bornagainJack Jones_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Thank you BA.Andre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Andre, for what it is worth, which may not be much, I think you comments are right on the mark for the vast majority of times, and are certainly far more coherent than any atheist's commentsbornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Lartanner It is a good thing that I am my own man. Don't care what other people think of me.Andre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Why Do We Invoke Darwin? By Philip Skell Excerpt:,,, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/ Op-Ed: Time to Ditch Natural Selection? - Oct. 3, 2015 Excerpt: If NS were a law of nature, we would see every organism trending along the same trajectory: for instance, bearing more offspring. But NS explains opposite outcomes with equal ease (see Oct 1 entry for examples). It explains why the sloth is slow and the cheetah is fast. It explains why the roundworm is round and the flatworm is flat. It explains why some animals bear lots of young and why some bear few. We are led to believe that NS explains up, down, in, out and sideways by some mysterious, aimless force, and whatever results was caused by NS. For some time now, I have been calling NS the “Stuff Happens Law” because NS is simply a restatement of the phrase, “stuff happens.” The Stuff Happens Law is the polar opposite of scientific explanation. NS, therefore, is a charade, amounting to giving up and saying, “We don’t know; que sera, sera.” Natural Selection Is a Post-Hoc Rationalization, Not a Cause read more here: http://crev.info/2015/10/op-ed-time-to-ditch-natural-selection/
Of related note, that physicists believe there should even be an overarching 'theory of everything' is a Theistic presupposition. That belief is not an atheistic presupposition:
Christ’s unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Excerpt: The belief that there should be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. a theory of everything), does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gb75eVQyt3wU0Pwcl5nes4N2axenxQKZa4pYxSSeGzk/edit
bornagain_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

We are told that Darwinian evolution explains the origin of life all the time. One RNA act upon another. They evolve into life. Poof.Upright BiPed_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Andre, At first, I thought you were kidding but now I see you consider these serious responses. I wonder what your fellow ID proponents make of your comments. (I think you are all over the place and don't really know what you are saying.)LarTanner_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Lartannar Has of course never heard of cosmic evolution neither has he heard of Larry Moran who believes evolution does explain OOL. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.htmlAndre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

If you want to know who and why consult philosophy, or just ask Darwinism.Andre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Lartanner ID does not explain who the designer is. Darwinism on the other hand does. Good old Natural selection. ID also does not explain why but Darwinian evolution does, good old survival of the fittest. What ID does try and answer is how. Does Darwinian evolution try and explain how? Nope your best answer is always an intelligent designer would not have done it that way.Andre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Lartanner said to Andre @32 "And I think we all agree that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, the existence of the universe, or the dynamics of human history. And so on." What's the theory of evolution that does not explain the origin of life? Evolutionists can't agree what the theory of evolution is.Jack Jones_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Andre (32):
A theory that explains everything explains nothing….
Agreed. And I think we all agree that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, the existence of the universe, or the dynamics of human history. And so on. Now: Without snark, can you or any ID proponent say exactly what ID does NOT explain?LarTanner_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

A theory that explains everything explains nothing....Andre_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Hi everyone, There's one thing I really would like to fix about UD's definition of Darwinism in its glossary. The word "tenants" needs to be changed to "tenets." The name "Futuyama" needs to be amended too - it should be "Futuyma" - but that is a trifling error by comparison. Re Professor Larry Moran's quote from Mayr above: while it is certainly true that some Darwinists rejected the idea of junk DNA, it is also true that a large number had no trouble in accepting it. Certainly from 1980 onwards, the idea became very mainstream among evolutionary biologists (many of whom would consider themselves neo-Darwinists of one stripe or another). There are a number of posts on Evolution News and Views which contain quotes by Darwinian biologists who embraced the concept of junk DNA. Finally, I'm not claiming that Neo-Darwinism predicted the existence of junk DNA before it was even discovered. (I don't think Barry Arrington is making that claim either.) Rather, what I'm saying is that Neo-Darwinism is a highly malleable theory which is perfectly compatible with the existence of large amounts of junk DNA. I should add that the term "prediction" can mean "implication." At least one Darwinist said that Darwin's theory predicts the occurrence of large amounts of junk DNA. Here's what Francis Collins wrote in The Language of God in 2006 (as quoted by Barry Arrington in his previous post):
Darwin’s theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function, (namely, those located in “junk DNA” ) will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding region of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process.” That is exactly what is observed.
vjtorley_{November 10, 2015
November
11
Nov
10
10
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next