No Precambrian Rabbits: Evolution Must Be True

SpitfireIXA, #94

You are hoping beyond reasonable hope that traumatic genetic damage and degredation will result in evolutionary progress. Cam, that’s not only illogical, it’s irrational.

And I find it illogical that you think single-nucleotide changes, insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements are barriers to evolution when they are commonly observed in viable, fertile organisms. camanintx

SpitfireIXA, #94

Cam, the bottom line is this, and it is exemplified in your last post: You are hoping beyond reasonable hope that traumatic genetic damage and degredation will result in evolutionary progress. Cam, that’s not only illogical, it’s irrational. If you actually lived out that belief, you would be searching through tornado-stricken towns for the next great generation of household appliances.

Why do you think I would ever confuse household appliances with living organisms?

And since it is now understood that the vast majority of necessary events for evolution could not be influenced by natural selection, you’re reduced to hoping in the power of random luck.

Understood by who? What necessary events? You certainly have a knack for being ambiguous. camanintx

BTW, your link in your previous post is broken. SpitfireIXA

I'm s stickler for spelling: "degradation" above. SpitfireIXA

Cam, the bottom line is this, and it is exemplified in your last post: You are hoping beyond reasonable hope that traumatic genetic damage and degredation will result in evolutionary progress. Cam, that's not only illogical, it's irrational. If you actually lived out that belief, you would be searching through tornado-stricken towns for the next great generation of household appliances. And since it is now understood that the vast majority of necessary events for evolution could not be influenced by natural selection, you're reduced to hoping in the power of random luck. The Darwinian devils are not in the details. They are in the fundamentals, which Darwinists can't seem to see. This thread is passing soon, so this will be my last post. You happen to be one of the better pro-evolution posters I've seen here, and I enjoyed the dialog... SpitfireIXA

SpitfireIXA, #92

Whether any particular genetic imperfection is overtly damaging is difficult to tell. Whether they result in evolutionary progress is empirically demonstrated to be false — no newer, better species have resulted from them in any lab or observed in nature to date.

Since biologist agree that new species have been observed in both the lab and in nature, I would like to know how this has been empirically demonstrated to be false. Since every difference between the human and chimp genome can be explained by mechanisms observed in viable, fertile organisms, exactly where is the barrier between the evolution of species? camanintx

Cam, I am aware of Britten's work. Your assessment of his work is not entirely accurate: 1. He uses a sample, not a complete review. 2. He first lines up the section of the human chromosome which he believes most closely matches the chimp. So it is not a direct comparison. He matches before he matches. 3. The results of the ongoing ENCODE project are making many of the previous assumptions about variance obsolete. As far as DNA sequencing and interaction are concerned, much more is going on inside the cell than previously believed. 4. Junk DNA can no longer be ignored.

Do you agree that chromosomal rearrangements events such as deletions, duplications, inversions; and translocations occur frequently in populations and many have little or no effect on viability or fertility?

Whether any particular genetic imperfection is overtly damaging is difficult to tell. Whether they result in evolutionary progress is empirically demonstrated to be false -- no newer, better species have resulted from them in any lab or observed in nature to date. SpitfireIXA

SpitfireIXA, #89

You continue to be fixated on fusion. You have an empiricially insurmountable problem across all of the chromosomes. Combined with the empiric reality that misaligned chromosomes nearly always produce death or infertility, and your just-so story hangs by a very thin thread.

Nearly does not mean always. As long as there are mechanisms which allows each mutation that isn't fatal or infertile to be fixed within a population, then the Theory of Evolution can easily explain how one species becomes two. SpitfireIXA, #90

So, no, I don’t agree with your numbers. Line up each chromosome, in full, and give a failing grade to each area that does not precisely align. The percentage gets small.

Roy Britten at CalTech did just such a comparison in 2002 and arrived at a value of 95%. Would you consider that accurate? Do you agree that chromosomal rearrangements events such as deletions, duplications, inversions; and translocations occur frequently in populations and many have little or no effect on viability or fertility? camanintx

Cam @87

It all depends on how you measure differences as explained here.

Yes, it certainly does, and it is quite apparent that it is hard to do so. So, no, I don't agree with your numbers. Line up each chromosome, in full, and give a failing grade to each area that does not precisely align. The percentage gets small. It is the height of scientific buffoonery to carefully go through the human and chimp genes, find places that match, then count how many of those matches match. That is how we gained the entirely felonious "99%" of which our schoolchildren read about as fact. Thanks for the reference. That is the best short version of the percentage differences that I have seen. Notwithstanding the bald guy in boxers lunching with his piggy bank... SpitfireIXA

Cam @87

If you agree that these types of mutations can happen without killing the organism or rendering it infertile, then do you also agree that it doesn’t require simultaneous in two organisms?

You continue to be fixated on fusion. You have an empiricially insurmountable problem across all of the chromosomes. Combined with the empiric reality that misaligned chromosomes nearly always produce death or infertility, and your just-so story hangs by a very thin thread. (Please don't strip my "nearly" out the next time you quote me, as you did before.) SpitfireIXA

Joseph, #86 camanintx,

Where are all the organisms with 47 chromosomes? Did they just happen to conveniently die out? 47 is the number we would get by having an organism with 46 successfully mate with one with 48- is it not?

If chromosome recombination in meiosis is a function of homology, why wouldn't the two chromosomes from one parent recombine with the single homological chromosome from the other, leaving the offspring with only 46 chromosomes? After all, recombination with multiple chromosomes is not unheard of. camanintx

SpitfireIXA, #81

There are clearly examples of both duplication and fusion not causing fatality or infertility (though this is rare, infertility is the norm). Life’s flexible capacity for survival is very impressive. There are, however, no empiric evidences of these phenomena causing evolutionary progress.

If you agree that these types of mutations can happen without killing the organism or rendering it infertile, then do you also agree that it doesn't require simultaneous in two organisms? SpitfireIXA, #83

I am very familiar with human-chimp genome mapping. You post articles without much comment, which is unhelpful to a discussion. Is your contention that human and chimp genomes are actually 99% identical?

It all depends on how you measure differences as explained here. Would you agree that all of the differences between humans and chimps can be explained by approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements? camanintx

camanintx, Where are all the organisms with 47 chromosomes? Did they just happen to conveniently die out? 47 is the number we would get by having an organism with 46 successfully mate with one with 48- is it not? But anyway there still uisn't any genetic evidence that can be linked to the changes required. Nothing for the loss of the opposible big toe. Nothing for all the changes requires for upright bipedal motion. Nothing but wishful thinking. Joseph

Mr Lim (71):

so I’m not surprised to see biologists using “design language”. The issue here is whether an intelligent cause was involved in creating these designs or not, and I don’t see how analyzing the language used by writers helps us answer that question.

If you study nature you see many examples of obvious design. Everything from the carbon cycle to the human brain manifest profound design. Sure, we can ascribe it all to random motions like the Epicureans, to the improbable events of evolution, to a multiverse, etc. These are all explanations that are not motivated by the empirical scientific evidence, but by metaphysics. I think of science as not trying to impose metaphysical viewpoints, but rather as following the data, letting the data speak for itself, and so forth. An as I mentioned above, I think the empirical data clearly point to design. I don't think it is something that needs a lot of head scratching. And if you look as successful scientific work, it rarely incorporates or hinges on evolutionary thought. Rather, such research treats nature as designed. Sometimes such design assumptions are erroneously labeled as evolutionary. I suspect the teleological and Lamarckian language that always seems to creep in reflects the ubiquitousness of design in nature. But I'm not saying this is proof, and I know many people would not be swayed by this. If you really want powerful evidence, look at the science, such as biology. The only way around it, AFAIK, is the religious and philosophical arguments that evolutionists rely on. Cornelius Hunter

Khan (65) and Cam (67): Khan,

In your definition of ID you include references to evolutionary theory. since, by your thinking, evolution is religious, doesn’t the incorporation of evolutionary ideas make ID religious as well?

No, keep in mind that there is the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. Evolutionists explain that the theory is how we think evolution occurs (the mechanisms, etc). The fact, OTH, refers to evolutionist's certainty that evolution is as sure as gravity. The former is not religious, the latter is. In the def'n of ID I gave, the former is referenced. Cam,

Evolutionists claim evolution is as much a fact as is gravity.

That’s because genetic change in a population inherited over generations, just like gravity, is an observed fact. The point you keep missing is that “evolution” and the “Theory of Evolution” are two separate things. Your continued attempts to conflate the two are getting quite tiresome.

No, I am not the one conflating things. Please read my response to Khan above. Evolutionists do not claim evolution is as sure as gravity merely because there is genetic change in populations. This is a long-standing fallacious equivocation that, yes, is quite tiresome. Cornelius Hunter

Cam @78 I am very familiar with human-chimp genome mapping. You post articles without much comment, which is unhelpful to a discussion. Is your contention that human and chimp genomes are actually 99% identical? SpitfireIXA

"Nonesense" No, absolute truth. "Anyone who thinks Haldane would have had any trouble providing evidence for evolution obviously knows nothing about the man." Haldane had nothing to support naturalistic macro evolution. Otherwise where is it? Did he hide it from everyone and keep it secret. He certainly never presented it. He had nothing just as no one today has anything. Otherwise they would present it. No there is nothing to support it. All the anit ID people are living proof in support for ID by their silence on anything substantive. jerry

Cam @78 At this point, I must admit some confusion.

We’re talking about the feasibility of two hominids, one with two fused chromosomes, producing offspring.

This is not really what we're talking about. You continue to bring this up, hence your "one card" analogy. I have been trying to explain the difficulty that you have in all of the gene differences -- my "refinish and reprint" analogy.

I would love to see references to these empiric facts of equine homology.

Yes, so would I. I asked you for them. Your previous attempt at documenting it was not successful, as centromere variance does not compare to gene variance.

just provide some references to back up your claim that telomere-telomere fusion always results in infertility.

Again... it is a fascinating subject, and not one that I am contending. There are clearly examples of both duplication and fusion not causing fatality or infertility (though this is rare, infertility is the norm). Life's flexible capacity for survival is very impressive. There are, however, no empiric evidences of these phenomena causing evolutionary progress. Because in the end, empirically, species remain fixed. The now-millions of generations of lab populations attest to this. ... SpitfireIXA

Seversky, both ID proponents and materialists have found far more challenging data than the comical rabbit: Symbol systems Cellular information Hierarchical information processing Genetic algorithms Polyfunctionality -in short, Design. The ID response is to push for recognition of the obvious. The materialist's response is the same in biology that its been in cosmology, that is, attack the motives of the opposition and insist on the legitamacy of special pleading. Upright BiPed

jerry 77

Haldane, when he made his “rabbits in the Cambrian or pre Cambrian” remark was essentially admitting that they had no evidence for evolution. If he had serious evidence, he would have presented it and not resorted to this flip statement. So anyone using this comment essentially is admitting that they have no serious evidence and are distracting from the issue with an absurd example. Otherwise they too would preset their evidence.

Nonsense. The story goes that Haldane was challenged specifically to name something that could falsify evolution not prove it. The famous Cambrian rabbits were his answer. Anyone who thinks Haldane would have had any trouble providing evidence for evolution obviously knows nothing about the man.

Let’s hear it for those rabbits.

Never mind hearing it for them. If ID proponents are really serious about unseating the theory of evolution an replacing it with Intelligent Design, they need to be out there looking for them. Just huddling together and jeering at biologists from the sidelines is not going to cut it. Seversky

SpitfireIXA, #76

The empiric evidence is that humans and chimps cannot cross breed.

We're not talking about cross breeding humans and chimps. We're talking about the feasibility of two hominids, one with two fused chromosomes, producing offspring. There is ample evidence of this occurring, so presenting it is a barrier to evolution is specious. Here are some more references for you to peruse. The non-random occurrence of Robertsonian fusion in the house mouse. The Chromosome Shuffle

There are many reasons for this, but lack of homology is the bedrock reason — the “99%” statistic is not accurate. Therefore, your argument that human-chimp homology is closer than equine homology seems both unproven by your previous post, and shattered by the empiric facts.

I would love to see references to these empiric facts of equine homology. In the mean time, may I present another paper documenting the high degree of homology in human and chimp genomes. Structural divergence between the human and chimpanzee genomes

Leaving that off, there’s something far more interesting in your last post.

I will need more than your word that this would prevent an individual with this mutation from breeding.

After coming up with a hypothetical — this fusion — you seem to be saying that, unless someone empirically disproves it, it is true. Is that what you are saying?

I'm not asking you to empirically disprove anything, just provide some references to back up your claim that telomere-telomere fusion always results in infertility. The word of SpitfireIXA may be good enough in your world, but not in mine. camanintx

Haldane, when he made his "rabbits in the Cambrian or pre Cambrian" remark was essentially admitting that they had no evidence for evolution. If he had serious evidence, he would have presented it and not resorted to this flip statement. So anyone using this comment essentially is admitting that they have no serious evidence and are distracting from the issue with an absurd example. Otherwise they too would preset their evidence. So when people repeat Haldane's facetious remark they are trying to hide the inadequacy of their position. Of course the people at the Economist probably do not have a clue about the debate any way. So they like many other anti ID people who keep on using the rabbits in the pre Cambrian comment show everyone once again that the pro Darwin supporters have nothing to back up their beliefs. Let's hear it for those rabbits. jerry

My, how we've drifted from rabbits... Cam @75 Your references do not assist your argument. Centromeres are chromosomal joining points, not gene sequences. They are not well understood and difficult to map, which makes them interesting. But they hardly make a useful correlation to chimp/human homology. The empiric evidence is that humans and chimps cannot cross breed. There are many reasons for this, but lack of homology is the bedrock reason -- the "99%" statistic is not accurate. Therefore, your argument that human-chimp homology is closer than equine homology seems both unproven by your previous post, and shattered by the empiric facts. Leaving that off, there's something far more interesting in your last post.

I will need more than your word that this would prevent an individual with this mutation from breeding.

After coming up with a hypothetical -- this fusion -- you seem to be saying that, unless someone empirically disproves it, it is true. Is that what you are saying? SpitfireIXA

SpitfireIXA, 68 There is far mor homology between Human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosomes 2 & 3 than between horses, donkeys and zebras. Since hybrids with far more chromosomal difference than a simple fusion are able to produce fertile offspring, I will need more than your word that this would prevent an individual with this mutation from breeding. camanintx

Hi Clive,

You can’t use any other language other than design language because that is what explains and describes the mechanisms. To use any other language wouldn’t relate what is being meant. That means that the idea that it is not designed is wishful thinking.

I'm not proposing that things like flagella are not "designed" in some sense (e.g., perhaps by evolution itself). I'm just saying that the mere fact that people use "design language" does not support the existence of an intelligent cause for these designs. Mr. Lim

Mr Lim,

so I’m not surprised to see biologists using “design language”. The issue here is whether an intelligent cause was involved in creating these designs or not, and I don’t see how analyzing the language used by writers helps us answer that question.

You can't use any other language other than design language because that is what explains and describes the mechanisms. To use any other language wouldn't relate what is being meant. That means that the idea that it is not designed is wishful thinking. Clive Hayden

ETA to #71: Thanks for responding to my OT question, Cornelius. Mr. Lim

Cornelius,

Such design language is ubiquitous in the literature. The fact that so many writers use design language is good evidence that certain features are best explained by an intelligent cause.

As Richard Dawkins wrote,

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose

so I'm not surprised to see biologists using "design language". The issue here is whether an intelligent cause was involved in creating these designs or not, and I don't see how analyzing the language used by writers helps us answer that question. Mr. Lim

camanintx,

The fact that horses (64 chromosomes), donkeys (62 chromosomes) and zebras (44 chromosomes) can breed would suggest that your assumption is wrong.

Are they now classified as the same species because they can breed? Usually not being able or making the personal choice of not breeding is what classifies animals into different species, so is the reverse (ability to breed) used to make classifications of the same species? Clive Hayden

By the way, I hope you are not holding up the nearly-always sterile offspring of forced interbreeding as the crowning proof of random, progressive evolution. SpitfireIXA

Cam @64

The fact that horses (64 chromosomes), donkeys (62 chromosomes) and zebras (44 chromosomes) can breed would suggest that your assumption is wrong. Care to try again?

That's because those chromosomes between the equines remain homologous. And even then the mismatching genes dance without a partner and suffer genetic difficulties like the death of the reproductive cells in the mule/hinny. I understand why you attempt to focus on the straw man of chromosome count, ignoring the far more important pairing of their homology. A fused chromosome would not be homologous with its unfused mate and therefore fail. Whatever function is found in that fused portion is lost, permanently and immediately. Would you care to try again? SpitfireIXA

Cornelius Hunter, #63

Evolutionists claim evolution is as much a fact as is gravity.

That's because genetic change in a population inherited over generations, just like gravity, is an observed fact. The point you keep missing is that "evolution" and the "Theory of Evolution" are two separate things. Your continued attempts to conflate the two are getting quite tiresome. camanintx

SpitfireIXA, #59

This is why I find the "just one card" analogy to be a joke.

You appear to be assuming that an individual with fused chromosomes would be unable to reproduce with other individuals without the fusion. The fact that horses (64 chromosomes), donkeys (62 chromosomes) and zebras (44 chromosomes) can breed would suggest that your assumption is wrong. Care to try again? camanintx

Cornelius, In your definition of ID

Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection

you include references to evolutionary theory. since, by your thinking, evolution is religious, doesn't the incorporation of evolutionary ideas make ID religious as well? Khan

Mark Frank (61):

are you saying it is making the religious assumption that God didn’t lay down the iridium layer in just that fashion?

No, evolution is different. Evolutionists claim evolution is as much a fact as is gravity. The empirical evidence does not support evolution very well, until the "god wouldn't do it that way" arguments are used, to prove evolution indirectly. Cornelius Hunter

Mr Lim (51):

What do you find to be the most compelling evidence supporting ID which is not just a critique of evolution?

There is so much to say about this. Let me just give a thought. If we define ID as follows:

Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

then the language one finds scientists using is strong support for ID. Here are some typical examples:

Transposable elements (TEs) are powerful facilitators of genome evolution, and hence of phenotypic diversity as they can cause genetic changes of great magnitude and variety. TEs are ubiquitous and extremely ancient, and although harmful to some individuals, they can be very beneficial to lineages. TEs can build, sculpt, and reformat genomes by both active and passive means.

"I saw this old work," says Alle. "I thought I cannot believe personally that nature would waste such energy."

These are by no means the best examples (I just happen to be looking at them), but this sort of design language is common. Such design language is ubiquitous in the literature. The fact that so many writers use design language is good evidence that certain features are best explained by an intelligent cause. Cornelius Hunter

#60 So it assumes that if god designed / created the species, then god would not do it in a certain way. Oh come on - if that is a religious assumption then equally every scientist that ever deduced anything from any evidence is making the religious assumption that "if God did it, he didn't do it so things turned out to look like my theory". For example, the theory that an meteor collision was responsible for the iridium layer on the K-T boundary - are you saying it is making the religious assumption that God didn't lay down the iridium layer in just that fashion? Mark Frank

Mark Frank (53):

It assumes nothing about how such a pattern of separate descent might have happened – it might be God

So it assumes that if god designed / created the species, then god would not do it in a certain way. Cornelius Hunter

Cam @ 57

The differences between humans and chimps is about the same as replacing one card in a deck of 52. What you still have not presented is a mechanism which prevents this card from being changed.

Because if you try to replace the card, casino goons come beat the intestinal matter out of you and throw you out of the casino on your head. This is a powerful preventative mechanism.

Besides, the difference in our chromosome count has already been explained through the fusion of chromosome 2, something which critics cannot refute.

Oh good, someone has explained how this happened, and therefore it is unrefutable fact. Wouldn't it be nice if Darwinism could actually prove something now and then. Now all they have to do is explain how: 1. At least two members of a species have this happy fusion event at the exact same time. 2. They both survive to adulthood whatever wrecking ball genetic disruption is caused by fusing an entire gene to another. 3. Out of the entire population of non-fusers, they happen to meet and share a champagne moment. 4. How not just the chromosome count but the exact chromosome length and exact order of each one of the billions of base pairs is shifted to exactly match between the happy couple. What are the odds, 1 x 10 45000000000000? Go play those odds. This is why I find the "just one card" analogy to be a joke. What you still have not presented is a mechanism which allows this card to being changed, and allows all of the other cards to be resurfaced and reprinted. SpitfireIXA

Joseph,

Mr Lim, ID does NOT argue against “evolution”. (snip)

Perhaps not, but Cornelius Hunter certainly does:

This is yet another simple example revealing the absurdity of evolutionary theory.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/origin-of-dna-code-did-evolution-occur.html Mr. Lim

SpitfireIXA, #52

All typical humans have the same genetic structure - chromosome count, etc. Your 3 million are found within this identical structure. Like a deck of cards, you can deal different hands. Chimps have a different genetic deck of cards. Therefore, there’s a world of difference between the 3 million and the 68 million.

The differences between humans and chimps is about the same as replacing one card in a deck of 52. What you still have not presented is a mechanism which prevents this card from being changed. Besides, the difference in our chromosome count has already been explained through the fusion of chromosome 2, something which critics cannot refute. camanintx

O'Leary (4), "But surely this isn’t really an argument? Why would all trees benefit from staying small?" Quite simple: you expend more resources if you have to grow a bigger body. A bigger body comes at a resource cost. Gaz

Mark Frank, It all depends on the order of Creation. It also depends on the time- say the days of Genesis were eons of time. Then there is the fact that we would expect fish to be found lower in the fossil record just by their living environment. So before anyone can use the fossil record for anything they need to know at least two things: 1- How did the fossil record form 2- Can genetic changes account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. Joseph

Mr Lim, ID does NOT argue against "evolution". ID argues against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes. As for the most compelling evidence for ID: Read "The Privileged Planet" and "Signature in the Call" TPP demonstrates the design inference goes beyond biology. Joseph

Mark Frank:

Many biologists have argued that a rabbit in the precambrian would falsify evolution.

Those biologists don't have a clue as to how science operates. Joseph

Re #50 Cornelius It entails the assumption that if species had been separately created then the pattern of creation did not mimic the pattern of common descent (when you think of all the patterns that you might have observed with separate creation, a pattern which mimicked common descent would be most odd). It assumes nothing about how such a pattern of separate descent might have happened - it might be God or it might be an entirely natural process. It is not a religious assumption. Mark Frank

Cam @ 49:

The DNA of two unrelated humans will differ by about 3 million base pairs. Humans and chimps in general differ by about 68 million base pairs. Can you explain how any of these processes permit the former while simultaneously prohibiting the latter?

All typical humans have the same genetic structure -- chromosome count, etc. Your 3 million are found within this identical structure. Like a deck of cards, you can deal different hands. Chimps have a different genetic deck of cards. Therefore, there's a world of difference between the 3 million and the 68 million. SpitfireIXA

Cornelius, This is a bit off-topic, so please reply or not as you see fit. What do you find to be the most compelling evidence supporting ID which is not just a critique of evolution? Imagine I am completely undecided on the matter of whether ID, evolution, or some other theory is true. What would you tell me? Mr. Lim

Re #33: "Cornelius – I don’t understand your argument at all." OK, let me try again. This argument: “The fit [ie, the sequence of the major groups in the strata] is good evidence for evolution, because if fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals has been separately created, we should not expect them to appear in the fossil record in the exact order of their apparent evolution.” is religious because it entails assumptions about what the fossils would look like if the species had been created. The fact that there exist naturalistic hypotheses for separate ancestry does not remove the argument that separate creation is falsified. It merely adds other hypotheses which are thought to also be falsified. Cornelius Hunter

Borne, #42

camanintx: Genetic entropy, internal genetic barriers against over-expression, internal correction mechanisms, etc. all weigh against macro.

The DNA of two unrelated humans will differ by about 3 million base pairs. Humans and chimps in general differ by about 68 million base pairs. Can you explain how any of these processes permit the former while simultaneously prohibiting the latter? camanintx

#23: "Here’s an example from a textbook that lays out the argument in more rigor: “The fit [ie, the sequence of the major groups in the strata] is good evidence for evolution, because if fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals has been separately created, we should not expect them to appear in the fossil record in the exact order of their apparent evolution.”" I'll just point out that ID has quite a big tent. This debate seems to be rather disjointed, with some IDers arguing no common descent and literal creationism, and others not. Dated fossil evidence shows the quoted rough order of apparent descent with time, This is at the class level, and also strongly implies common descent. Unless abductive reasoning is suspect in this case. Prominent ID authority Michael Behe accepts common descent and an "edge of evolution" at the taxonomic class level (which is the vertebrate taxonomic level of the above quote). I'll go along with his version of ID. magnan

Looks like this little guy might be the "barrier" I'm looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteasome IRQ Conflict

Borne, what are the "internal genetic barriers against over-expression? Is there work being done to find the edge of genetic instruction? Or is it even humanly possible to find out? Given the vast amounts of data needing to be deciphered? Or am I way off base? IRQ Conflict

"Many biologists have argued that a rabbit in the precambrian would falsify evolution." You have to credit these biologists for at least subjecting their theory to a risky falsification criteria!!!! Vivid vividbleau

Re #41 Many biologists have argued that a rabbit in the precambrian would falsify evolution. That is quite different from arguing saying "No Precambrian Rabbits: Evolution Must Be True" This point has been made several times above. Mark Frank

Caman, "On the other hand, the lack of a barrier is a serious problem to those who claim that macroevolution cannot occur, wouldn’t you agree?" When you say "macroevolution", are you talking about the front loaded version? I'm wondering why you'd think there are no barriers to macro ev. At this point there are, categorically, insurmountable barriers. lamarck

camanintx:

the lack of a barrier is a serious problem to those who claim that macroevolution cannot occur, wouldn’t you agree?

The problem is that the barrier that exists between micro and macro is high and thick and cannot be crossed by mere RM + NS. These ubiquitous and gratuitous extrapolations of micro into macro are not scientifically warranted. You just can't extrapolate anything into anything else without a valid evidential warrant. And much evidence is against it. Genetic entropy, internal genetic barriers against over-expression, internal correction mechanisms, etc. all weigh against macro. Borne

I've actually been presented the argument in the title by Darwinists claiming to be well educated scientists - on forums like this. How do you falsify Darwinian evolution? "Oh, easy", they say, "rabbits in the Precambrian"! So its a cop out to pretend no Darwinists ever use the argument as is, they do. As is so typical when confronted, they morph into denial mode. Borne

IRQ Conflict, #25

I am a Creationist. I don’t put up invisible barriers. But I certainly wouldn’t claim that the lack of evidence of said barrier is proof of Macroevolution. That is a fallacy. One that I see constantly promoted by the religious Darwinists.

If the lack of a barrier were the only argument for macroevolution, you might have a point there. On the other hand, the lack of a barrier is a serious problem to those who claim that macroevolution cannot occur, wouldn't you agree? camanintx

anonym,

So it’s not – in this respect – absurd to look for a Cambrian rabbit in order to falsify naturalistic evolution, while it is absurd to cite the lack of a Cambrian rabbit (or the like) as proof that naturalistic evolution is fully confirmed by the evidence.

Thanks for the reply. I agree completely with your point, and if that is what Cornelius is saying in post #8, then I have no problem with it. Mr. Lim

Joseph, #36

camanintx:

When biologists say that evolution is a fact and theory, they are referring to numbers 2 and 6. ID accepts number 2 and only questions the 6th meaning

#6 is far from a fact so anyone who claims it is is lying.

And you won't find any biologist that says it is. Taking quotes out of context to imply otherwise is one of the more disingenuous traits of evolutionary theory critics. camanintx

camanintx:

While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific,

Except that the pre-cam rabbit is not a valid criteria. IOW perhaps the only thing that could falsify the ToE is a meeting with the designer(s) explaining what actually took place. So before one can say something about falsification you need to present a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms. Joseph

camanintx:

When biologists say that evolution is a fact and theory, they are referring to numbers 2 and 6. ID accepts number 2 and only questions the 6th meaning

#6 is far from a fact so anyone who claims it is is lying. Also ID accepts up to and including #5. ID also accepts the blind watchmaker has a very minor role. Joseph

Mark Frank:

The fossil record is evidence for common descent.

Except it isn't. Ya see the vast majority of the fossil record (>95%) is of marine invertebrates. No evidence of universal common descent is observed in that vast majority.

Common descent leads to the positive prediction that the history of life would show a hierarchy of development while separate descent would not.

Except that evolution does NOT have a direction so in reality no such hierarchy was ever predicted. Joseph

Mr. Lim: The cambrian-rabbit postulate is like a mainstream sixteenth-century astronomer saying that contemporary theories of astronomy would be falsified if a planet was reliably observed to follow a sawtooth-wave path across the sky. It's certainly true that this would be sufficient to disprove the astronomy of the time. It's not true that it would be necessary to see this, or something just as wildly at odds with the astronomical charts, to disprove the astronomy. We know with hindsight that much more minor discrepancies with the observed celestial motions turned out to be signs of fundamental incorrectness in the astronomical theories. So it's not - in this respect - absurd to look for a Cambrian rabbit in order to falsify naturalistic evolution, while it is absurd to cite the lack of a Cambrian rabbit (or the like) as proof that naturalistic evolution is fully confirmed by the evidence. (Mandatory government health warning: This comment contains analogy. Analogies are not suitable for children under the age of 12 except under the supervision of an adult. The drawing of a sound analogy between naturalistic evolution and Ptolemaic astronomy does not in itself constitute evidence that naturalistic evolution is false, or an assertion to that effect. Analogies can go down as well as up.) anonym

#32 Cornelius - I don't understand your argument at all. The premise of separate descent and the premise of common descent are both compatible with theism and atheism. Are you denying this? The fossil record is evidence for common descent. Where does the religion come into it? Mark Frank

Re 31:

The argument you quote is sound. ... Religion doesn’t come into it.

Of course religion comes into it.

separate descent might be a natural process).

And it might not be. The premise about separate descent must entail both cases in order for the argument to succeed. Cornelius Hunter

Re #25 Here’s an example from a textbook that lays out the argument in more rigor: “The fit [ie, the sequence of the major groups in the strata] is good evidence for evolution, because if fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals has been separately created, we should not expect them to appear in the fossil record in the exact order of their apparent evolution.” I am sorry. I thought you were talking about the specific example of a rabbit in the precambrian not the sequence of the major groups in the fossil record. The argument you quote is sound. It is important to realise which flavour of evolution we are discussing here. In this case it is simply common descent. The argument compares common descent with separate descent(Religion doesn't come into it. Common descent might have been started or even controlled by God and separate descent might be a natural process). Common descent leads to the positive prediction that the history of life would show a hierarchy of development while separate descent would not. Nothing wrong with that argument. Mark Frank

Venture,

I’m quite interested to hear your refutation of my argument.

Refuting your argument isn’t a problem at all; it’s just a little boring at this stage in the game. (In case you were not aware, the flimsy demarcation arguments against ID have all been refuted – by those who are no friends of ID I might add). If you narrow the context of the arbitrary demarcation line narrow enough to exclude ID then you can throw out a great number of other scientific ideas as well, and if you broaden it enough to include those ideas, then ID is well within the boundary. Many philosophers of science have consequently moved on. What remains is the obvious logic that an idea is either refuted by the scientific evidence or it is not; it is either supported by that same evidence or it is not. It also would seem that science (being a search for truth) looses credibility when one ideological faction (the conventionalists) try to insist that there own arbitrary rules be used to refute empirical hypotheses on procedural rules violations instead of by the empirical evidence itself. In dealing with the question of the origin of living tissue, the answer is one of two: either it was the product of material causes, or it wasn’t. Ideologues who claim that it’s not even possible to explore if “it wasn’t” display a level of circular reasoning that is simply uninteresting. Now, the problem with your specific argument is that it falls apart from the very start. It’s based on an error of fact, one of supposed ignorance within the scientific community as to the chemical and physical properties that surround, say, the existence of DNA. However, we already know and understand the chemical bonding properties of nucleic sequencing in DNA (grab a schematic of bonds within DNA and look for yourself). There are no physical or chemical forces between the nucleotides along the linear axis of DNA (where the information is) that causes the sequence of nucleotides to exist as they do. In fact as far as the laws of the universe are concerned DNA doesn’t even have to exist at all. Yet, the sequence of nucleotides is the source of organizational and functional information for all living things on this planet, and it exists without any physical laws to explain its existence. The very same argument you posit appeared here just days ago (as it does repeatedly thorough out the months and years). I told the last materialist that fronted the ignorance argument that his logic betrayed an ignorance of knowledge and discovery. I now say the same to you: - - - - - - - - This betrays your misunderstanding (or willful abuse) of discovery and knowledge. When you hear of a cancer researcher (for instance) talking about the vast number of unknown enzymes and compounds that can be found at the depths of the oceans or in the rain forest – each of which may lead to a cure for cancer – then you need to realize what is being said. Or more precisely, what is being said about “what we don’t know”. These researchers are looking for organic constituents that might perhaps have a favorable effect on the molecules and cells they study. These “favorable effects” will come in the form of chemical reactions which they have not seen in any of the constituents they’ve studied thus far. The “unknown” part of this lies within the realm of what we have and have not seen in the chemical reactions that we’ve studied. What it does not mean is that we are looking for a new type of chemical bond that we do not even know exists. In other words, when a researcher applies a new compound within his/her studies; they are not jumping back from their lab equipment with their arms in the air, shocked that there is a new category of chemical reaction that no one on Earth has ever seen. They are looking for reactions which clearly fall within the chemical regularities that we are already intimately familiar with. They can DESCRIBE those reactions as they study them, and they understand those reactions by virtue of an already known set of descriptors. We already know the bonds that are in play in the sequencing of DNA. None of them have the capacity to cause the selective aperiodic nature that we observe within the sequence. Appealing to ignorance is simply a put off of what we already know to be true – and if that put off is offered solely for the reason of being able to ignore the only cause already known to be able to create the effect we observe, then science is no longer science. Its just ideology and politics. Men in labs who follow their ideology instead of the evidence. - - - - - - - - - - In other words, your argument is divorced from the facts. Also, materialism as an all-encompassing ideology is refuted by observable evidence that is not even in dispute. If you would care to read scientists a little more closely you might have picked up on this fact. I posted four examples from a forty year span of time just for that reason. Upright BiPed

IRQ Conflict, #26

camanintx @11 I took the liberty of binging some links and quotes for you.

Then I suggest you let the moderators of this web site know they are mistaken. camanintx

Cornelius Hunter, #17

“While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn’t prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur.” Please don’t shoot the messenger.

Only when they deliberately distort the message. camanintx

I gave this "barrier" thing a little thought. Would the barrier have something to do with a lack of information? That is, programming. Seems reasonable to me at least. IRQ Conflict

Design predicts that not all things are the result of a cause and effect relationship of purely material forces, but that an act of agency is involved.

I think I spelled out very clearly exactly why this is an Argument From Ignorance and therefore not a valid prediction. I'm guessing you got as far as "...I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer" and simply assumed that you knew what the rest of the post was about. I'm quite interested to hear your refutation of my argument. And to be fair I don't think materialism is actually a scientific theory either, and I don't think that the "prediction" made by materialism is any more valid than the one you claim for ID. I've given you a fairly detailed explanation for why such "predictions" are invalid. Whether you agree or not, surely it must be true that ID makes other types of predictions, right? So does ID make any prediction that isn't reducible to "ID predicts that you will never find X?" For instance, the above reduces to "Given an effect for which the cause is currently unknown, ID predicts that you will never find a purely material force or forces which can be shown to be the cause." And for the record, I'm perfectly aware that my argument applies equally to the proverbial precambrian rabbit. See Mark's comment @ #18. VentureFree

Ah! Here is an interesting link for ya camanintx. "The Creationists would have us believe there is some magical barrier separating selection and drift within a species from the evolution of new species and new characteristics. Not only is this imagined barrier invisible to most scientists but, in addition, there is abundant evidence that no such barrier exists. We have numerous examples that show how diverse species are connected by a long series of genetic changes. This is why many scientists claim that macroevoluton is just lots of microevolution over a long period of time. " I am a Creationist. I don't put up invisible barriers. But I certainly wouldn't claim that the lack of evidence of said barrier is proof of Macroevolution. That is a fallacy. One that I see constantly promoted by the religious Darwinists. From what I understand, the claim is that because microevolution occurs and is observed and there is no known (key word) mechanism by which said process is either shunted or stopped all together then it is rational to think that it continues to do so leading to speciation. Am I correct in my analysis? It gets better, or worse depending on your POV. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html IRQ Conflict

camanintx @11 I took the liberty of binging some links and quotes for you. "for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons." http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm To further convolute the issue read talk origins redefinition of things as they try to squirm out from having to confront the issues. "Supermacroevolution" (wheres my cape Robin?) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html It's a all the "creationists" fault Hahaha...oh brother. IRQ Conflict

#18

I am aware of several examples of scientists who when asked “what would falsify the theory of evolution?” – respond “rabbit in the precambrian” following what Haldane may or may not have said. I don’t know of a single example of a scientist arguing: “There are no rabbits in the precambrian therefore evolution is true” or even using this as evidence for evolution. Can you refer to a single example?

Of course it has been used as evidence (Haldane and later evolutionists). It is not being set forth as a serious (or risky) prediction of evolution. Yes, it is prediction, but its confirmation doesn't *directly* help evolution much. In fact there can be all kinds of contradictions within the evidence and evolution is unharmed. The point of these types of "predictions" is that they falsify creation / design. As usual, it's all about religion. Here's an example from a textbook that lays out the argument in more rigor: "The fit [ie, the sequence of the major groups in the strata] is good evidence for evolution, because if fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals has been separately created, we should not expect them to appear in the fossil record in the exact order of their apparent evolution." Cornelius Hunter

Venture Free, When I see a celebrity-scientist wrap himself in empiricism while he rejects observable evidence (most of which is hardly even in question) in order to sell his metaphysical conclusions in a book – then I call BS. When a news/op organization then reviews the book without even the slightest bit of skepticism (particularly one that operates under a code of ethics that contains such crazy ideas as accuracy, questioning motives, avoiding stereotypes, giving voice to dissention, etc) – then again, I call BS. You apparently don’t care that empiricists ignore observable evidence, but your tolerance for hypocracy does not constitute gullibility on my part. Instead, it takes a rather special arrogance on your part to even suggest naiveties. - - - - - - - - - A quick look at your blog offers an explanation for your twisted logic. I notice that you operate under the burden of finding an ID proponent that can give you a falsifiable prediction of the design hypothesis. If you would only stop ignoring the obvious, your problem would go away. Please allow me to make it simple for you. Let’s just take the two competing ideas on their face. Materialism predicts that all things are the result of a cause and effect relationship of purely material forces. Design predicts that not all things are the result of a cause and effect relationship of purely material forces, but that an act of agency is involved. These following words were placed into the scientific record in the summer of 1968 (Science, 160 1308): “Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of in animate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.” (Polanyi) In trying to reconcile the issues, the following question was placed into the scientific record in 2001 (Biosystems Vol 60 pp 5-21): “…if you abstract away the details of how subject and object interact, the "very peculiar range" of sizes and behaviors of the allosteric polymers that connect subject and object, the memory controlled construction of polypeptides, the folding into highly specific enzymes and other functional macromolecules, the many-to-many map of sequences to structures, the self-assembly, and the many conformation dependent controls - in other words, if you ignore the actual physics involved in these molecules that bridge the epistemic cut, then it seems unlikely that you will ever be able to distinguish living organisms by the dynamic laws of "inorganic corpuscles" or from any number of coarse-grained artificial simulations and simulacra of life. Is it not plausible that life was first distinguished from non-living matter, not by some modification of physics, some intricate nonlinear dynamics, or some universal laws of complexity, but by local and unique heteropolymer constraints that exhibit detailed behavior unlike the behavior of any other known forms of matter in the universe? -Pattee These words were then added in 2005 (Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 2:29) It could be argued that the engineering function of a folded protein is totally reducible to its physical molecular dynamics. But protein folding cannot be divorced from the causality of critical segments of primary structure sequencing. This sequencing was prescribed by the sequencing of Hamming block codes of nucleotides into triplet codons. This sequencing is largely dynamically inert. Any of the four nucleotides can be covalently bound next in the sequence. A linear digital cybernetic system exists wherein nucleotides function as representative symbols of "meaning." This particular codon "means" that particular amino acid, but not because of dynamical influence. No direct physicochemical forces between nucleotides and amino acids exist. (Abel) And appearing in 2009 (International Journal of Molecular Science 10, 247-291) The capabilities of stand-alone chaos, complexity, self-ordered states, natural attractors, fractals, drunken walks, complex adaptive systems, and other subjects of non linear dynamic models are often inflated. Scientific mechanism must be provided for how purely physicodynamic phenomena can program decision nodes, optimize algorithms, set configurable switches so as to achieve integrated circuits, achieve computational halting, and organize otherwise unrelated chemical reactions into a protometabolism. To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut [9]: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. - - - - - - - - So the question becomes: Which of these aforementioned predictions of reality has withstood the test of time; the most scientifically enlightened period in all human history, the past 50 years since the elucidation of genetic algorithms and the recognition that the genetic symbol-system is not reducible to the physicality demanded by materialism? Who will require special pleading from this point forward? Upright BiPed

Let me try to rephrase the title. If "precambrian rabbit" in the broadest sense means "a fossil with a position in the geologic column that is not according to the predictions of evolutionary theory" then it will not be a falsification of Darwinism. Every now and then such fossils are found, e.g. grass in dinosaur dung, just to give a recent example. The only thing these discoveries do is making the evolutionary theorists redraw the family tree of certain organisms. The idea of a literal precambrian rabbit is, of course, absurd, and as fas as I know no competing theory predicts the existence of such fossils. To me it looks more like a cleverly packaged strawman argument to make those who challenge Darwinism sound stupid. BTW, the phrase itself allegedly originates from J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and is indeed used by evolutionists to argue at least the falsifiability of evolutionary theory. Alex73

anonym,

I think the distinction here is between what counts as necessary as opposed to sufficient evidence for falsification.

Could you flesh this out a bit? I'm not sure I understand how this relates to Cornelius' point. Mr. Lim

Is there anyone who disputes that a materialist mechanism is completely unknown, which would account for the fossil record and cambrian explosion? lamarck

Mr. Lim:

Please tell your YEC colleague Andrew Sibley that the “rabbit in the Precambrian” falsification criterion is absurd.

I think the distinction here is between what counts as necessary as opposed to sufficient evidence for falsification. anonym

Clive,

What is absurd? This criterion is used quite often in the evolutionist camp, if you find it absurd, take it up with them.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear in my original post. I agree with you that evolutionists (Haldane in particular) have proposed rabbits-in-the-Precambrian type tests of evolution. What I am disputing is that this type of test is necessarily "absurd", as Cornelius asserted. It's not absurd to Carl Baugh, who has made a career out of looking for these things, and presumably it's not absurd to Mr. Sibley and other YECs who post here. Mr. Lim

#17 I am aware of several examples of scientists who when asked "what would falsify the theory of evolution?" - respond "rabbit in the precambrian" following what Haldane may or may not have said. I don't know of a single example of a scientist arguing: "There are no rabbits in the precambrian therefore evolution is true" or even using this as evidence for evolution. Can you refer to a single example? Mark Frank

"While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn’t prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur." Please don't shoot the messenger. Cornelius Hunter

camanintx: While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn’t prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur. Exactly.

Now if all you Jebus people will just shut up about it, we can all go back to assuming its true anyway. /sarcasm Upright BiPed

Mr. Lim,

Please tell your YEC colleague Andrew Sibley that the “rabbit in the Precambrian” falsification criterion is absurd.

What is absurd? This criterion is used quite often in the evolutionist camp, if you find it absurd, take it up with them. Clive Hayden

camanintx: While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn’t prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur. Exactly. Dave Wisker

Cornelius Hunter, #10

Wisker (8):

The very title of this blog post is a complete and utter non sequitur, which no evolutionary biologist (least of all Richard Dawkins) has ever espoused.

I know it sounds absurd, but the Precambrian rabbit, and others like it, are precisely what evolutionists have seriously set for as falsification criteria / creation refuter.

While falsification only proves that the Theory of Evolution is scientific, it doesn't prove that the theory is true, so your title is still a non-sequitur. camanintx

Cornelius,

I know it sounds absurd, but the Precambrian rabbit, and others like it, are precisely what evolutionists have seriously set for as falsification criteria / creation refuter.

Please tell your YEC colleague Andrew Sibley that the "rabbit in the Precambrian" falsification criterion is absurd. Mr. Lim

IRQ Conflict, #7

camanintx @4 Exactly the point. Micro=fact Macro=wishful thinking. But real scientists don’t distinguish between the two do they? Gee, wonder how come?

More like microevolution=fact, macroevolution=theory, but yes, real scientists do distinguish between them. Even the people behind this web site don't dispute this.

Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution This is urban legend, for such terms have been used regularly in the scientific literature.

Now if you really think "theory" means "wishful thinking" to real scientists, then I suggest you haven't met any real scientists. camanintx

Wisker (8):

The very title of this blog post is a complete and utter non sequitur, which no evolutionary biologist (least of all Richard Dawkins) has ever espoused.

I know it sounds absurd, but the Precambrian rabbit, and others like it, are precisely what evolutionists have seriously set for as falsification criteria / creation refuter. Cornelius Hunter

The very title of this blog post is a complete and utter non sequitur, which no evolutionary biologist (least of all Richard Dawkins) has ever espoused. Dave Wisker

VentureFree: After reading you "responses" here and then looking at the dense smog on your blog, it seems that you have less than a clue on the actual problems involved and little knowledge of the term "logical fallacy". An amusing journey into the dark recesses of the Darwinian "mental illness" (to quote Sir F. Hoyle on Darwinists) is mostly what one finds there with the obligatory condescension. This from your "Duty Calls" bit,

"This is exactly how I feel sometimes, and I’m sure my wife would agree. It’s pretty much the reason this blog exists at all."

Of course it never occurred to you that others look at your smog are thinking the exact same thing about you, did it? Didn't think so. As for

"non-religious arguments"

what would they be? Fossils? Mutations (bugs in the code)? Pepperred moths? Ida? ...

"doesn’t mean that they have no substance."

Well what is that substance? Speculation is not substance. Just-so stories are not substance. Gratuitous extrapolations into the past are not substance. Conjecture is not substance. Explaining away the multitude of contradictory evidence is not substance... One could go on and on with that alone.

"All it means is that you are only willing to look at religious arguments and everything else is irrelevant".

I hope you're kidding but doubt it. The religious (metaphysical) arguments are everywhere in Darwinian hypotheses! The only people who don't see this are ensconced Darwinists, and that is because they were weaned and bred on their own metaphysics falsely being called "science". There are copious quantities of 'religion' underlying the whole of neo Darwinism. Borne

camanintx @4 Exactly the point. Micro=fact Macro=wishful thinking. But real scientists don't distinguish between the two do they? Gee, wonder how come? IRQ Conflict

"... among the many puzzles that evolution explains so well are the futility and suffering that are ubiquitous in the natural world. All trees would benefit from sticking to a pact to stay small, but natural selection drives them ever upward in search of the light that their competitors also seek." But surely this isn't really an argument? Why would all trees benefit from staying small? Trees don't "suffer" when they are large. And large trees are critical to the ecology of a boreal forest. Among other things, large trees produce more seeds, so their progeny are more likely to be buried somewhere by a squirrel. Not that the tree knows or cares, but it helps explain why being large is not really a disadvantage to the tree. A whole ecology grows up that depends on large trees. As for competition, well, the main competition is from the tree's own offspring. That is a problem that is usually only resolved when it becomes a standing dead tree, housing a different selection of life forms than the live tree did, but no longer a competitor for light. O'Leary

Cornelius Hunter

With religious arguments like these who needs scientific evidence? But wait, evolution is supposed to be a fact of science. This is where the lie enters in.

Cornelius apparently has neglected to read the Arguments not to use link under the Comments Policy here at UD, specifically the following:

The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education: 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor or multiple LUCAs. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor (LUCA). 6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, such as lateral gene transfer or endosymbiosis, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

The first two meanings are observed facts that only a fool would question. When biologists say that evolution is a fact and theory, they are referring to numbers 2 and 6. ID accepts number 2 and only questions the 6th meaning, but quoting biologists calling the Theory of Evolution a theory just doesn't have the same impact. Conflating the two meanings as Cornelius repeatedly does is disingenuous at best. camanintx

Venturefree, The best part is the non-responses of the evolutionitwits. It's really too bad, yet amusing, that they cannot substantiate their claims with anything but religious arguments. Joseph

The quotes from the article regarding "the designer" are simple unbelievable. Hook, line, and pharyngula. Upright BiPed