Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ann Gauger Responds to a Correspondent Regarding I.D.


Check it out here!

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-were-so-many-darwin-defenders-no-shows-at-the-world%E2%80%99s-premier-evolutionary-conference/ Mung
Am I mistaken or is my impression correct that Nick seems to popup on various threads, drop a couple of st*nk bombs and then quickly disappear? This onlooker would be very interested in links to any threads where Nick has engaged in any extended discussions. steveO
Am I mistaken or is my impression correct that Nick seems to popup on various threads, drop a couple of stink bombs and then quickly disappear? This onlooker would be very interested in links to any threads where Nick has engaged in any extended discussions. steveO
Well Joe kind of beat me to it, but given that you haven't provided any evidence that those were explicitly present in the so-called "creationist" drafts I guess they aren't what they're hyped up to be. Jeffrey Helix
LoL@Nick Matzke, Intelligent Design can trace its origins back to at least the time of Aristotle. And nothing Nick can say will ever change that fact. Joe
Hi Jeffrey, Go read: Matzke, N. (2009). "But Isn't It Creationism? The beginnings of 'intelligent design' and Of Pandas and People in the midst of the Arkansas and Louisiana litigation." But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, Updated Edition, Prometheus Books, edited by Robert Pennock and Michael Ruse. Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, pp. 377-413. NickMatzke_UD
@Nick: Can you find any of the following in the early Panda's drafts? 1. A supernatural god created everything out of nothing 2. It was done in less than a week 3. The Earth is less than 10,000 years old 4. Fossils are there to "test our faith" 5. We should rely on the bible or other sacred text to draw conclusions. Can't find the full list where I got some of these from but to assert that it's a creationist text I would expect at least a few of those to be present. Jeffrey Helix
You're welcome tj :-) Blue_Savannah
JoeCodor Creationism in its criticism of evolutionary concepts must also question presumptions about classification of biology. Evolution does strive to explain the fantastic same lookness of marsupial types with placental types and they must. otherwise its against the odds. Australia uniquely has marsupials and not the others. It makes sense they simply do have the same creatures but put a pouch on them. Creationists just need to watch moving or still pictures of thge marsupial wolf and this would lead to better ideas on adaptation without evolution. Otherwise creationists need to explain marsupial look alikes with placentals. Something's got to give on these real facts of biology. Robert Byers
NickMatzhe I am aware of these details you link too but they are minor details. The marsupial wolf is just another wolf with a pouch. A marsupial lion likewise was a lion. There is no reason to classify them as a unrelated other group of animals. This is why they are unique to areas and not in other areas. tHey simply are the same creatures who upon migration had a general change in these details for good reasons back then. One can see moving or still pictures of the marsupial wolf and be convinced its just another dog. All the points of anatomy surely trump the few points of difference. Convergent evolution must be invoked to explain such likeness and this explains nothing poorly. I wrote an essay called "Post Flood Marsupial mIgration Explained" by robert Byers. Just google if interested. Reproductive details must not seduce one about relationship. Anatomy should dominate these things. Robert Byers
@Nick Thanks for stopping by. I'm not claiming that the convergence is indistinguishable, only demonstrating that morphology is a poor indicator of relatedness, and as an extension of that, that transition sequences can just as easily be built in "incorrect" ways as the "correct" ones. @Robert I disagree with "placentals with pouches". Nick's slide 99 addrsses that. JoeCoder
Well, Joe, you ought to know by now that evolutionary theory does not say half an eye was used for half seeing. The purpose of half an eye was to give half an eye lid something to do. And half a brain is better than no brain (or not), as you can tell from your arguments with darwinists. Mung
I love the "half an eye" nonsense- blind people have 100% of an eye yet they cannot see. Ya see it is the VISION SYSTEM that needs to be accounted for and if you need 100% of the vision system to be intact before you get any benefit then 50% isn't going to do anything for you. Joe
Nick Matzke, Your position cannot explain marsupials (nor placentals), so perhaps YOU need to "try again"... Joe
Thanks Blue for that heads up. I'll check it out. tjguy
I know this is not a Creation website, but I noticed the person who asked Ann Gauger the question, cited some Talk origins sources. Creationwiki does a great job answering those claims made by Talk origins: http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims Blue_Savannah
Re: marsupials -- try again guys: http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html#marsupials NickMatzke_UD
JoeCodor I like your points here. AMEN about the fossil record NOT being usefull for biological research. its just about biological data points and then connections imagined. Yet no biological evidence for the connections. Just geological musings. This YEC insists marsupials are just placentals with pouches. Our wolves and marsupial wolves are the same wolf with minor local variation. This is why it is a recurring theme with marsupials/placentals likeness. All classification systems have been wrong because they were based on primitive observations of traitys and someone's valuing of traits in drawing biological relationships. Just plain wrong were the old ones. Robert Byers
XXXX is apparently not someone interested in real answers and the evidence. They appear to be just phishing for some way to catch the Biologic folks in a misstatement, throwing the whole "God isn't necessary" irrelevance into the mix, etc. Eric Anderson
Not a biologist/paleontologist, but one reason I have doubts with using the fossil record being used to support evolution is that of signal vs noise. Take the wolf and tasmanian wolf, which supposedly diverged 130m years ago from some rat-like therian. Give evolution, the fossils on the left would be more closely related to bats, giraffes, humans, and whales than to its twin on the right. This is a recurring theme among placentals and marsupials. Sometimes I even wonder if ichthyosaur (reptile, air breathing, live birth, warm blooded, and at the right time) could serve as a link between sharks and cetaceans if somebody ever needed one. JoeCoder
XXXX asks "How confident are you that mutations don’t produce new genetic information and is ”Irreducible complexity” a thing of the past which has been refuted?" IC is in fact alive and well. ;) Upright BiPed

Leave a Reply