Apparently, archaeopteryx has been restored as “first bird” again. Maybe.

No reply? DrREC

But it's your name ScottAndrews2/Thornton. You came up with it. GinoB

GinoB/Thornton, I'm not thin-skinned, as you have given me the opportunity to demonstrate. But I can think of no greater insult than to be called by your name. ScottAndrews2

Apparently in ScottAndrews2 magic Creationist fantasy-land, different features can only evolve serially, never in parallel. His evidence is in here. GinoB

ScottAndrews2/Thornton

Think for a moment of the countless living things that both have a feature and also control or use it. For a process that works in single steps, to achieve a variation that requires both phenotypic and behavioral change to be useful is like a climbing a 10,000 foot faceless cliff barehanded. A climber that ascends one small foothold after another cannot ascend gradually. It’s all or nothing. That is the barrier. That is the reason why undirected variation and selection get you multicolored cichlid fishes while intelligently directed artificial selection, which actually envisions and reaches for a result, gets you poodles and golden retrievers.

In all your blustering and dumb inappropriate analogies you forgot to provide the real world barrier that prevents small phenotypic changes from accumulating into larger ones. What is the real world genetic barrier equivalent to your faceless cliff? Please link to the appropriate scientific research.

Don’t forget the echolocation. Don’t forget the behavioral difference which enables bats to use echolocation. Don’t forget the specialized ears. Or the the ability to emit focused, high-frequency sounds. (A lower frequency would be like looking at a computer with 50×50 resolution.) And don’t forget that none has any benefit with the other two. Please, explain how that accumulates.

LOL! "What good is half an eye?!?!?" ...is there any stupid Creationist PRATT argument you won't sink to regurgitating? How could a chihuahua evolve from a wolf ancestor as you say it did? The short leg bones, the short body, the smaller heart, the smaller lungs, the smaller brain to control the body? According to your dumb reasoning it could never happen because all those changes had to appear intact and all at once. In the real world far removed from Creto-land, all the components co-evolve together. A bat with 1% of current echolocation ability has an advantage over 0%. A 2% bat has an advantage over a 1%. It's differential reproductive success that matters, not being 100% all at once.

The limitations are what we observe,

You haven't provided any evidence for long term observed limitations, only extremely short term changes. Why are you even posting on an ID board? You're not arguing ID, just posting stupid Ken Ham caliber Biblical Creationist nonsense. Why don't you just tell me I'm an evil evo sinner damned to burn in hell and be done with it? GinoB

There are ‘known barriers’ to the mechanisms of evolution, GinThortonoB, and those barriers are the mechanisms themselves. By their very nature they are limited to changes which can occur in one or perhaps two variations

Evidence please. wd400

Forgive me, I just have to throw another log on this. Somebody stop me. GinoB/Thornton,

small phynotypic changes empirically observed to arise from known processes of evolution can accumulate incrementally over time into larger phynotypic changes, and there is no known barrier to prevent the accumulation.

If this is so evidently true, then why do you only cite evidence of individual phenotypic changes, and not of their accumulation? Why not take, for example, the rodent and the bat, and describe the differences between them as a series of phenotypic changes, each traceable to a specific genetic or regulatory variation? Do that and you'll almost have an evolutionary narrative. Now you'll just need to explain why each variation resulted in differential reproduction. Here's a hint: a research paper explaining the difference in protein regulation between the forelimbs of rodents and bats gets you about .01% of the way there. Maybe. Don't forget the echolocation. Don't forget the behavioral difference which enables bats to use echolocation. Don't forget the specialized ears. Or the the ability to emit focused, high-frequency sounds. (A lower frequency would be like looking at a computer with 50x50 resolution.) And don't forget that none has any benefit with the other two. Please, explain how that accumulates. There are 'known barriers' to the mechanisms of evolution, GinThortonoB, and those barriers are the mechanisms themselves. By their very nature they are limited to changes which can occur in one or perhaps two variations. Being undirected, they cannot "plan" to accumulate dozens of variations which coordinate to effect a greater change. Only intelligence plans. Think for a moment of the countless living things that both have a feature and also control or use it. For a process that works in single steps, to achieve a variation that requires both phenotypic and behavioral change to be useful is like a climbing a 10,000 foot faceless cliff barehanded. A climber that ascends one small foothold after another cannot ascend gradually. It's all or nothing. That is the barrier. That is the reason why undirected variation and selection get you multicolored cichlid fishes while intelligently directed artificial selection, which actually envisions and reaches for a result, gets you poodles and golden retrievers. Science is what we observe, not what we imagine. The limitations are what we observe, and the boundless possibility is what you imagine. You can't overturn observed reality with hopeful imagination. I'm not upset that fishes can't evolve into giraffes. I already knew that. Last time you came up with this priceless gem, "there is no known barrier to prevent the accumulation." I've never seen so many wrong thoughts in so few words. My head almost exploded. More, please. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

Of course evolution doesn’t define the word “significant.” Why call attention to its weakness?

Why define a concept that is biologically meaningless and useless except to slimy Creationists?

Your argument is that whatever makes fish change colors has no limits and is responsible for all diversity in biology. And, oddly, you claim that only magic can prevent it from acting.

LOL! You just love to dishonestly twist things, don't you? That is not my argument, nor anyone in the scientific community that I know. The scientific argument is that small phynotypic changes empirically observed to arise from known processes of evolution can accumulate incrementally over time into larger phynotypic changes, and there is no known barrier to prevent the accumulation. You're the guy claiming there is such a barrier. Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate one.

It’s not an easy thing to test the limits of evolutionary mechanisms because the process is typically so slow. But to the extent that they have been tested, particularly with bacteria and yeast, such tests demonstrate limitations rather than open-ended evolution.

You haven't demonstrated that the real-time changes we can observe are any kind of hard limits, or identified any mechanism for such limits. You're claiming because I can only walk 3 miles in one hour that I can never walk 100 miles given enough time.

Those limits are also predicted by our understanding of how many combined mutations are required to produce even the smallest of new features.

LOL! What predictions are those? I hope you're not referring to Behe's error-filled brain fart 'Edge of Evolution' that's been soundly refuted and rejected by the scientific community. Behe knew it was trash, so much so he didn't even bother to submit it to any mainstream science journals but published it himself in a popular press book. That's real ID science for ya!

You also make the case for me when you go digging for the best case of evolutionary changes described in evolutionary terms that you can find and come back with different-colored cichlid fishes, just as I predicted.

"Waaaaah! Waaaah! The fish didn't evolve into a giraffe like I demanded! Waaaah!

What was it you’ve said over and over about willfully ignoring evidence?

That's you alright. GinoB

Me: "What that amount is, and how to quantify it is unestablished." Joe: "That doesn’t matter- ...." How very scientific. It doesn't matter where the bar is set, or how the value is quantified-it is design. "nature, operating freely has never been observed to produce any significant amount of specified information that I am aware of" De novo genes? Novel activities? All designed, I guess? How many amino acid changes is 10-20 bits, Joe? DrREC

That is a lot of verbage, but no answer. "Where we are able to observe, functionally specific, complex information beyond 500 – 1,000 bits is reliably the produce of intelligence" Let us start here: give me an example of 500-100 bits of information arising at once, and the calculation. Otherwise, design has never been observed. And don't say life. My genome contains a lot of information, but not greater than the universal probability bond MORE than that of my parents. "to overturn, all that would have to be done is to provide reliable counter-examples." Every time I provide such, you conclude either it is a designed experiment, or the result of design in nature. ID is unfalsifiable, because it is a self-defining inference and not a mechanism. If I produce an example of X amount of information arising naturally, you can (and have) conclude it is design in action because of the inference. Do you not get that it is impossible to rule out design? DrREC

GinoB, Of course evolution doesn't define the word "significant." Why call attention to its weakness? Your argument is that whatever makes fish change colors has no limits and is responsible for all diversity in biology. And, oddly, you claim that only magic can prevent it from acting. If that is your hypothesis, then go about defining a specific test and gathering some evidence to support it. You have asserted an opinion and given me nothing of substance to refute. It's not an easy thing to test the limits of evolutionary mechanisms because the process is typically so slow. But to the extent that they have been tested, particularly with bacteria and yeast, such tests demonstrate limitations rather than open-ended evolution. Those limits are also predicted by our understanding of how many combined mutations are required to produce even the smallest of new features. You also make the case for me when you go digging for the best case of evolutionary changes described in evolutionary terms that you can find and come back with different-colored cichlid fishes, just as I predicted. What was it you've said over and over about willfully ignoring evidence? ScottAndrews2

Right now all observations say your position doesn't have anything- not one ounce of evidence that mutations can accumaulate in such a way as to give rise to new, useful and functional multi-part systems. It appears that anything requiring more than two specific mutations is beyond the reach of blind, undirected chemical processes. The point being is that YOU cannot make YOUR case. Joseph

Dr Rec: The design inference is a lot more sophisticated than the caricature you present. 1: We explain the unobserved past scientifically on its traces in the present and the causal factors/forces known to be sufficient to explain such, indeed on the best explanation. 2: this is what say Lyell used, or Darwin, or in another form, Newton to explain the remote star systems and the laws that are likely to govern their behaviour. 3: Causal factors come in many flavours, but can be clustered under heads chance, necessity and intelligence, for certain purposes. 4: We know empirically tested, reliable indicia of each of these, relative to aspects of objects, phenomena, processes etc of interest. Trivially, dropped heavy objects reliably fall by mechanical necessity, and if they are fair dice will tumble to values by chance, etc. 5: Mechanical necessity best explians lawlike regularities. 6: High contingency traces to chance and/or necessity. 7: Where we are able to observe, functionally specific, complex information beyond 500 - 1,000 bits is reliably the produce of intelligence, as we expect analytically from the infinite monkey analysis. (The whole Internet is a collection of cases in point.) 8: We have strong inductive reason to infer that the best explanation for unobserved causal processes that give rise to FSCI, is design. 9: to overturn, all that would have to be done is to provide reliable counter-examples. These are simply not forthcoming. 10: If you were asked to bet serious money on taking a one-straw chance sample from a hay bale 2 1/2 light days across and known to contain a solar system, that the sample would hit solar system not straw, you would know why. (The bet is unwinnable, on sampling theory.) GEM of TKI kairosfocus

ScottAndrews2

That is also why I invite Thornton (and you) to explain why you feel that different-colored cichlid species are significant. Make your case.

Evolutionary biology doesn't define a term 'significant'. There are evolutionary driven changes, period. And right now there are no known limits on changes except those imposed by the laws of physics (i.e. mass vs. mechanical strength of bone needed to support the mass) You're the guy claiming there is some magic barrier that allows 'insignificant' phenotype changes but prohibits 'significant' ones. Make your case. GinoB

ScottAndrews2

Go back and read my posts again. I’ve said the same things over and over and over.

I did. I even posted them above. You changed your claims and added the weasel word "significant".

You labor under the misconception that showing the physical and genetic differences between two organisms somehow explains why one or both changed

The Seehausen paper didn't just document the changes, it explained with supporting evidence exactly why the changes occurred. Deny the results all you like, but they won't go away.

No one is saying that any of those mechanisms does not exist.

You said it, right here:

ScottAndrews2: How can it get past you that none of these evolutionary transitions are ever, ever explained in terms of evolutionary mechanisms?"

ScottAndrews2: “No evolutionary change is ever explained in terms of specific evolutionary mechanisms."

Then when you were shown wrong you changed your claims. Again, not very honest but absolutely typical Creationist.

As predicted, combined evolutionary mechanisms produce very limited results.

Here come the same tired, stupid Creationist arguments yet again...What are the limits and how did you determine them? Tell us specifically what mechanism would make it impossible for a mouse's paw to evolve through small incremental steps over generations into a bat's wing. Go on, say it: "Dogs are still dogs!! No one ever saw a dog evolve into a rhinoceros!" ...you know you want to. GinoB

Timbo, Stop blaming others because you don't understand their position. That is a standard evo ploy and it is very old and tiring. What are the limits? Well it appears that if something takes multiple mutations it is out of the reach of blind, undirected chemical processes. Joseph

Timbo, I've stated before that for the sake of these debates, it would be nice if there were an agreed-upon understanding of what a "significant change" is. For me to acknowledge more than once that the expression lacks definition and for you to jump on it anyway is a bit sad. I've said the same thing to other evolutionists and they understand what I am trying to say. That is a higher level of discussion in which you don't seem interested. That is also why I invite Thornton (and you) to explain why you feel that different-colored cichlid species are significant. Make your case.

What scientific principle do you know of that would cause evolutionary changes of the sort illustrated by GinoB to suddenly stop?

I don't know that they have. For all I know the cichlid fishes are still changing colors. ScottAndrews2

drREC:

ID is an inference that natural processes could never produce X amount of new information.

Specified information- nature, operating freely cannot produce X amount of specified information.

What that amount is, and how to quantify it is unestablished.

That doesn't matter- just show us what nature, operating freely can produce. That is what I mean when I say our knowledge of cause and effect relationships- nature, operating freely has never been observed to produce any significant amount of specified information that I am aware of (I am talking 10-20 bits of SI tops). Joseph

I've got to say, that's a pretty weak response ScottAndrews2. As GinoB says, dismissing evolutionary changes as being "within expected limitations" is a standard creationist ploy. What are expected limitations? Why are they expected? What is causing the limitations? What scientific principle do you know of that would cause evolutionary changes of the sort illustrated by GinoB to suddenly stop? And you acknowledge that your use of the word "significant" is arbitrary and undefined. Yet you use it anyway, and think that you are doing science? Timbo

GinoB/Thornton, Go back and read my posts again. I've said the same things over and over and over. No findings combine evolutionary mechanisms to explain a significant effect. When known evolutionary mechanism are combined, the results are within expected limitations, i.e. fish of different colors. If anyone is reading this and actually cares, I have no doubt that they picked that up. The goalposts have not moved. LIAR!!! (Just kidding. I wanted to see if that feels good. Doesn't do anything for me. :)) Describing a difference is not explaining change. I'm taller now than I used to be. That is a difference. Explaining why is yet another matter. You labor under the misconception that showing the physical and genetic differences between two organisms somehow explains why one or both changed. But that's irrelevant. As predicted, combined evolutionary mechanisms produce very limited results. No one is saying that any of those mechanisms does not exist. They just give you different-colored fish. Or lizards with larger heads. Or smaller heads. Whatever. (And I'm being charitable by not disputing the authors' vague claims of natural selection. How do you like that? Charity.) How is it my fault if it's underwhelming? BTW, I've acknowledged more than once that "significant" is arbitrary and undefined. That's one sad "gotcha" moment. Against the backdrop of all know biological diversity, do you think that different-colored cichlid fish are significant? Why? ScottAndrews2

You are right. I shouldn't let my disgust at the willful dishonesty of others pull me down to their level. I'll try harder in the future. GinoB

GinoB wrote at 20.1.1.1.6:

You creationist clowns are nothing if not predictable. Exactly as I called it above, you come back with the idiotic excuse “but they’re still FISH!!! I demand to see them evolve legs and compete on Dancing With The Stars!!”

Me thinks your time is almost up here Gino. Do you not have it in you to be civil? In case you hadn't noticed, you are now the only one acting like a petulant braggart. Elevate yourself a little. Stu7

GinoB, Not even YEC denies speciation- the change you reference is OK within a baraminology framework- You call Creationists "clowns" all you want- in reality it is your ignorance on display for all to see- that is your ignorance of your opponents' positions. Joseph

A single observation of your so-called design. ID is an inference that natural processes could never produce X amount of new information. What that amount is, and how to quantify it is unestablished. The bigger deal is there is not a single empirical observation of a gain of information from parent to progeny that would exceed that amount. Unless someone can provide me that. My genome has a lot of information, but It doesn't have a lot more information that my parents. DrREC

ScottAndrews2

In my own words: The Seehausen paper indicates that a population of cichlid fish has diverged both in color and in mating preference according to color, indicating that both the color and the fishes’ sensory perceptions have diverged. The selection appears to be sexual. This was tested by putting different fish together and seeing which ones they preferred to mate with.

Keep going Mr. Science. You forgot the most important part of the paper that shows the resultant genetic changes in both the LWS gene responsible for the color gradient as well as the divergence in the SWS2A opsin gene responsible for the ability to visually detect the color changes. The paper shows both the mechanism of selection and the genetic changes that drove the selection. The combined things you say don't exist. From the paper: "The following sensory drive speciation scenario is fully consistent with our data. First, divergent natural selection between light regimes at different water depths acts on LWS. Second, sexual selection for conspicuous colouration is also divergent because perceptual biases differ between light regimes. Third, their interaction generates initial deviation from linkage equilibrium between LWS and nuptial colour alleles as observed on all but the steepest gradients. Fourth, subsequent disruptive selection due to reduced fitness of genotypes with a mismatch between LWS and colour alleles causes speciation, perhaps involving reinforcement-like selection for mating preferences, whereby male nuptial colour may serve as a marker trait for opsin genotype."

If you recall, I explained to you that every example you were going to come up with would be missing one of two things – either a combination of evolutionary mechanisms, or evidence of significant evolutionary change. The Seehausen paper is an example of the latter. Take a long, hard look at the pictures of “variations” it contains. It’s the same fish in different colors, perfectly capable of interbreeding.

You creationist clowns are nothing if not predictable. Exactly as I called it above, you come back with the idiotic excuse "but they're still FISH!!! I demand to see them evolve legs and compete on Dancing With The Stars!!" I'll also remind you that wasn't your original claim, remember?

ScottAndrews2: "No evolutionary change is ever explained in terms of specific evolutionary mechanisms."

First it was NO evolutionary change in explained. Now it's no SIGNIFICANT evolutionary change is explained, where of course only you can decide what is "significant". Keep tap dancing and moving those goalposts there Scotty, it's real entertaining for the lurkers. ...and another dumb claim

ScottAndrews2: "Where is the selection? How did selection apply to any particular genetic change, or how did drift? That is the evolutionary explanation. It’s not wrong. It’s missing."

Still claim the selection part is missing? Let's not forget your blustering "challenge" either:

ScottAndrews2: "Evolution says that this genetic change occurred, had this phenotypic effect, and conferred a specific reproductive or survival advantage. Then another occurred. Or perhaps something varied, had no immediate effect, but drifted across the population and combined with other variations to produce effects requiring multiple variations. And over time these variations accumulate to produce new features, organs, behaviors, etc. All you have to do is explain any evolutionary change in those terms. Any. Anything. Something. Good grief, man, imagine something! Make something up!

Which is exactly. what the Seehausen work did. Exactly. Sorry Scotty, you made yourself look like a right ignorant fool on this one. GinoB

Fossfur, In reply to "I’ve had my beliefs my entire life" You say, "That in itself should be cause for alarm." Please elaborate. All parents teach their children certain beliefs unless they sperm donors or give them up for adoption. Schools also participate. What course do you recommend for children as they grow older: 1) Analyze those beliefs and make their own decisions, keeping some beliefs and rejecting others or 2) Reject everything they believed in childhood in its entirety, because believing something in adulthood that you believed as a child is a 'cause for alarm.' You are either assuming that #1 is not true in my case, or advocating #2. Which? Why? It's okay to be snide, but think it through first. Wouldn't you like to participate in a higher level of discourse than GinoB/Thornton? I'd like to think you would. ScottAndrews2

And yet ID is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism- it can be tested and falsified. What else does it need before it is science? Joseph

Thorton/GinoB,

Why don’t you summarize the Seehausen paper in your own words, then tell us why is doesn’t meet your challenge of providing a mechanism and genetic evidence for speciation.

In my own words: The Seehausen paper indicates that a population of cichlid fish has diverged both in color and in mating preference according to color, indicating that both the color and the fishes' sensory perceptions have diverged. The selection appears to be sexual. This was tested by putting different fish together and seeing which ones they preferred to mate with. If you recall, I explained to you that every example you were going to come up with would be missing one of two things - either a combination of evolutionary mechanisms, or evidence of significant evolutionary change. The Seehausen paper is an example of the latter. Take a long, hard look at the pictures of "variations" it contains. It's the same fish in different colors, perfectly capable of interbreeding. It's interesting, but the variation is too minor to be of interest. It demonstrates that variation and selection produce results within expected limitations. It sheds no light on how gills, fins, or scales might have evolved. In other words, it makes my point, not yours. That does not reflect on Seehausen. His paper says pretty much exactly what he says it does. It reflects on you, Thornton, because you don't know what it says. You seem to think that as long as you copy and paste a few links you've made some point, regardless of what they do or do not say. Now, back to you. In your own words, what exactly in this paper do you find so convincing or persuading? ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

Was this where you explained the relevance of a research paper in your own words? GB: "It’s about how cichlid fish diversified due to selection driven by genetically caused color differences." I then pointed out that the paper said nothing about why such changes might have been selected. The authors state outright that they do not know what role selection might have played

The paper you quote-mined that snippet from wasn't from the same paper you imbecile. It was from the Elmer paper, not the Seehausen paper. You can't even keep your lies straight. Why don't you summarize the Seehausen paper in your own words, then tell us why is doesn't meet your challenge of providing a mechanism and genetic evidence for speciation. Can't lie your way out of that one. You're going to have to do more than just skim the abstract this time. GinoB

GinoB, a.k.a. Thornton from darwins-god.blogspot.com, Was this where you explained the relevance of a research paper in your own words?

It’s about how cichlid fish diversified due to selection driven by genetically caused color differences.

I then pointed out that the paper said nothing about why such changes might have been selected. The authors state outright that they do not know what role selection might have played. That leaves you, not with an explanation of how they diversified, but rather the observation that they are diverse. I'm certain that the only words of it you read are the ones I "quote-mined" for you. No one is saying that your "evidence" does not exist. But existence is not enough. It must actually support your argument. I am not ignoring it. I am giving it reasonable consideration, and determining that it does not support your argument, and telling you exactly why in simple terms that you can attempt to refute. Sadly, you have retreated into a corner from which you can only hurl the same accusations of lying and denying and ignoring over and over. I can tell that you're getting frustrated because your rhetoric is heating up, your language has turned foul, and you've gotten careless and given away your identity. Really, start thinking exit strategy. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

With regard to those research papers – yes, I have read some of them, and before you even mentioned them.

Liar. You claimed such papers with evidence didn't even exist until I showed them to you.

To read an abstract and determine what the authors do or do not intend to explain is not quote-mining.

Cutting one out of context sentence out of one paper the way you did is quote-mining. It's a standard sleazy Creationist technique.

I’m certain that I’ve given far more thought to this “evidence” than you have.

You mean you prayed every night that the evidence would just go away.

I don’t believe that you read any of it. I am able to explain to exactly why these papers do not say what you hope they do. Not that they are incorrect, but that they don’t even address the subjects at all, which in turn is why I don’t think you’ve read any of them.

You've yet to address any of the technical details in the papers except to go "NUH UN!"

I’ve also asked you to explain, in your own words, exactly what you think any one of these papers explains. That’s a simple test to determine whether you have read or understand any of it. I’ve suggested that repeatedly and you have declined.

Another blatant lie. I did so right here. You cowardly refused to discuss the evidence. Here's the paper yet again in case you grow a pair: Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish

So as far as I can tell, you’re just here to sling mud. You post a bunch of links without any evidence of understanding them, I tell you exactly why they are irrelevant, and you return a post or two later telling me that I ignore evidence, don’t know what I believe, reside in a gutter, etc.

I'm here to correct the lies and bullshit you're slinging. The lurkers can see who's willing to discuss and who's running away.

You’re not exhausting me. You don’t even raise my blood pressure. I’m just curious to see how long it takes you to overheat and burn up or just disappear. Or perhaps you’ll surprise everyone and express a coherent thought in your own words.

I'm sure you can keep up the lying for Jesus all day long. You seem to have lots of practice in it. GinoB

ps - the best exit strategy at this point is to offer one final glorious triumphant diatribe and declare that you no longer have time to waste with me, that I'm not worth it, etc. You're a hero, a rock star. Don't forget it. ScottAndrews2

Thank you, GinoB. In addition to your expertise in googling and pasting links to research papers, you are now qualified to tell me what I think and why. With regard to those research papers - yes, I have read some of them, and before you even mentioned them. To read an abstract and determine what the authors do or do not intend to explain is not quote-mining. It's the very purpose of those abstracts and introductions. That way, if the paper does not address a particular subject, we don't need to read the entire paper to determine that. I'm certain that I've given far more thought to this "evidence" than you have. I don't believe that you read any of it. I am able to explain to exactly why these papers do not say what you hope they do. Not that they are incorrect, but that they don't even address the subjects at all, which in turn is why I don't think you've read any of them. I've also asked you to explain, in your own words, exactly what you think any one of these papers explains. That's a simple test to determine whether you have read or understand any of it. I've suggested that repeatedly and you have declined. So as far as I can tell, you're just here to sling mud. You post a bunch of links without any evidence of understanding them, I tell you exactly why they are irrelevant, and you return a post or two later telling me that I ignore evidence, don't know what I believe, reside in a gutter, etc. You're not exhausting me. You don't even raise my blood pressure. I'm just curious to see how long it takes you to overheat and burn up or just disappear. Or perhaps you'll surprise everyone and express a coherent thought in your own words. ScottAndrews2

The pot calls the kettle black. "Black, damn you, black!" Upright BiPed

I’ve had my beliefs my entire life...

That in itself should be cause for alarm.

The trouble with ID is that it goes to great lengths to scientifically demonstrate what has been obvious for centuries before something as preposterous as unintentional self-design ever caught on.

Great lengths? ID certainly has gone to great lengths. It's gone to great lengths to win public and legislative opinion. It's gone to great lengths to influence school boards. It's gone to great lengths to traverse the country in interminable debates while simultaneously asking "Why won't 'they' debate us?". It's gone to great lengths to demonize Charles Darwin as the true author of the Holocaust.... In fact the only place where ID hasn't gone to great lengths is the one area it so desperately seeks legitimacy; science. Fossfur

ScottAndrews2

This is yet another excuse to avoid the actual science. Agree with it or disagree with it.

LOL! Says the guys who has avoided every last scientific paper presented to him, save one that he looked at just long enough to quote-mine.

The trouble with ID is that it goes to great lengths to scientifically demonstrate what has been obvious for centuries before something as preposterous as unintentional self-design ever caught on

The real trouble with ID is that it's a political movement pretending to be science with zero scientific evidence to support it, and so appeals only to those with a religious agenda to push.

As a rational thinker, I would reject darwinism if there were no ID and no Christianity. You are profoundly ignorant to think that my rejection of it requires any additional motivation.

100% pure unadulterated bullcrap. You attack the evolutionary sciences solely because you're a Biblical Creationist and your religious beliefs feel threatened, for no other reasons. GinoB

Timbo, This is yet another excuse to avoid the actual science. Agree with it or disagree with it.

If it was established incontrovertibly that life arose through the purposeless interactions of molecules, then that would destroy the basis for your belief right?

If, if, if.

I agree with GinoB, I think you are being dishonest in the reasons for your objection to the science, and I think people should just be upfront about the influence of their religious beliefs on their support for ID.

I've had my beliefs my entire life, and I first heard of ID a few years ago. How arrogant of you to tell me why I believe what I do, and what it depends on. The trouble with ID is that it goes to great lengths to scientifically demonstrate what has been obvious for centuries before something as preposterous as unintentional self-design ever caught on. Why is that a problem? Because while reason is great for refuting unreasonable ideas, it is powerless against unreasonable people. Do you really think that before I even heard of Dembski or Wells that I was shaking in my Christian boots worrying that the next-gen Miller-Urey experiments might go somewhere or that anyone would offer a detailed, plausible account of any evolutionary change in evolutionary terms? As a rational thinker, I would reject darwinism if there were no ID and no Christianity. You are profoundly ignorant to think that my rejection of it requires any additional motivation. I could argue in turn that your blind acceptance of contrived what-if stories and creative narratives stems from your need to fit in with your peers and your fear of being the only one who doesn't see the emperor's clothes. There's abundant evidence that such factors can motivate a person to believe anything. But my position is strong enough that I don't need to bolster it with armchair psychoanalysis. And if you tell me that you accept yours purely on its scientific merits, it would be rather asinine of me to accuse you of dishonesty and tell you what you really think. Scroll up. If you want something to analyze, there are plenty of questions that GinoB thinks he has scratched the surface of. Perhaps you can do better. ScottAndrews2

Sonfaro

The thing about both sides is, at bare minumum, their collective disagreements pale to what is agreed upoon. For ID, it’s that things that look to be designed should be investigated to see if they are.

If that were true the scientific community would have no beef with ID. They can investigate to their heart's content. But it's not true. The ID proponents are demanding equal time in public school science classes before they have a positive case, before they have done the work and gotten the results independently confirmed. That's why we get court battles like Kitzmiller v. Dover - the IDers trying to make a dishonest end run around accepted scientific methodology. That's why we get them spending millions of dollars on trash propaganda films like EXPELLED while spending virtually zero on real scientific research.

In other words, simply saying ‘you can be wrong’ is annoyingly obvious. Of course we ‘can’ be wrong. ANY belief/theory/idea CAN be wrong. The question is: is it? GinoB thinks IDers are

That is not my position. My position is that ID is an unverified hypothesis that doesn't deserve time in science classrooms unless and until it proves its mettle. ID needs to explain the data better than the current ToE if it wants to replace ToE. That means doing the hard work and coming up with positive results. It means answering the hard questions about the details - when was the design done, and where, and how, and who was the Designer. That won't get done with the laughably bad, meaningless, and completely subjective alphabet soup of IC, CSI, FSCI/O, dFSCI, FSPI, FIASCO. GinoB

ScottAndrews2: "ID provides almost no support for this belief system. I do not cite any scientific evidence whatsoever for my belief in God. And if I wanted to argue for God’s existence I wouldn’t start with ID." You are going to a lot of trouble to say there is no link between your creationist beliefs and your support for ID. but are you not being disingenuous? If you believe in a creationist god, then surely ID would provide support for that belief? If it was established incontrovertibly that life arose through the purposeless interactions of molecules, then that would destroy the basis for your belief right? I agree with GinoB, I think you are being dishonest in the reasons for your objection to the science, and I think people should just be upfront about the influence of their religious beliefs on their support for ID. The reality is that ID is needed to maintain an effective basis for creationist beliefs. Those beliefs cannot survive if there is no design in nature (or at least you would have to become a theistic evolutionist). Timbo

Hey NickMatzke_UD, Does this mean Duane Gish was right? julianbre

Please, elaborate on the "etc." I don't want to miss anything. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

(Dusting myself off as I rise from the gutter of hypocrisy, I think)

Now all you have to do is stop with the typical slimy Creationist tactics - arguing from ignorance, ignoring scientific data and claiming none exists, demanding infinite levels of detail but providing none yourself, arguing that since science doesn't know everything it must not know anything, quote-mining, etc - and you can engage in honest scientific discussions. GinoB

(Dusting myself off as I rise from the gutter of hypocrisy, I think) That's it? Really? Was it worth what you lowered yourself to in order to get that answer? I have a label or two I could put on you, but I'm quite certain you'd never admit to any of them. :) ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

I’m going to see where this goes, just for the sheer heck of it, because clearly you’re building up to something. I give in. I want to know what it is.

It wasn't meant to go anywhere. I didn't start this sidebar, someone else did just to give me grief for referring to you as a Creationist. Now that you've finally admitted to actually being a Biblical Creationist and that I was correct, the matter has been put to rest. GinoB

Hey, Upright BiPed! I finally got round to responding to your Semiotic Argument for Design. Feel free to come over, or, if you respond here, perhaps you'd like to drop a link over there too. Cheers Lizzie Elizabeth Liddle

I'm going to see where this goes, just for the sheer heck of it, because clearly you're building up to something. I give in. I want to know what it is. Gino, I am a Christian. I believe that the God of the Bible created all life on earth. I believe that they were created according to "kinds," but I don't know specifically what those divisions were. ID provides almost no support for this belief system. I do not cite any scientific evidence whatsoever for my belief in God. And if I wanted to argue for God's existence I wouldn't start with ID. This had better be worth it. You must have some truly glorious rant planned for this moment. I am fixated. Commence, please. ScottAndrews2

(cough cough) Upright BiPed

Stu7

Uum Stephen C. Meyer admitted this on stage in a debate. It’s all in your head bud.

That's why I said virtually none, not all. Another guy who can't read for comprehension.

Oh ok, I get it now, your agenda has become clearer now. You’re right and everyone is simply lying. Good luck with that.

Of course I never said that either. Why can't you carry on an honest conversation? GinoB

I'm not angry at all. I just find blustering ignorance, hypocrisy, and denial of reality like you exhibit both fascinating and amusing. :) I'll note you're still not honest enough to tell us if you believe the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who poofed species into existence as fully grown animals. Let me know if you ever grow the spine to discuss the details of those papers with mechanisms for evolution you claim don't exist. GinoB

Gino,

That’s what I find so comically ironic – virtually no ID supporter will admit it, especially the Biblical Creationists.

Uum Stephen C. Meyer admitted this on stage in a debate. It's all in your head bud.

You know the ID movement is just an attempt to promote Christian religious beliefs, I know it, the scientific community knows it. Pretty much everyone who has followed ID in the last decade knows it, especially after the ID debacle at Kitzmiller v. Dover. So why keep up the charade that it’s not about the Christian God?

Oh ok, I get it now, your agenda has become clearer now. You're right and everyone is simply lying. Good luck with that. Stu7

Sonfaro

To get people to admit they’re Christian? Again, huzzah, the majority of us are. What of it?

I'd just like to see more honesty in admitting that's the primary reason for the support of ID, not any scientific reasons. To the scientific community ID is nothing more than an updated version of 'scientific creationism'. An attempt to cherry-pick and spin scientific data to support a pre-decided conclusion. IDers can claim "ID is not about the Designer!" all they want, but reality is that's not the case. GinoB

GinoB, So far you've called me a liar, a hypocrite, a red-nosed clown, and told me that I'm a "gutter." You seem to be someone with anger issues who believes he has found a convenient place to unleash some frustration. Do you notice that even the die-hard evolutionists on this forum are steering clear of you? I'm afraid you will have to remain angry, because you have yet to post a substantial word. We're observing you out of curiosity, but it has nothing to do with any argument you've made. And every time I respond I just feel guilty. I really should stop. ScottAndrews2

Stu7

Of course they do. Whatever shape or form that “God” might take, unless of course they’re agnostic or adhere to an alternate “creation” – a necessary universe conceived through some “immanent principle or law in nature”.

That's what I find so comically ironic - virtually no ID supporter will admit it, especially the Biblical Creationists. You know the ID movement is just an attempt to promote Christian religious beliefs, I know it, the scientific community knows it. Pretty much everyone who has followed ID in the last decade knows it, especially after the ID debacle at Kitzmiller v. Dover. So why keep up the charade that it's not about the Christian God?

Unless you claim to know the mind of every supporter of ID you’re really just blowing smoke and making things up as it suits you.

LOL! I never claimed to know the mind of every IDer. But it is pretty easy to recognize when someone claims "ID is not about the Designer!" then cites Genesis as supporting evidence. GinoB

Not clear enough I'm afraid. I mean, what was the point of this? -"I understand that as a political tactic ID won’t identify the suspected Designer, I really do. But on a practical side, virtually every ID supporter (save a few) think’s it’s his God. Let’s see a show of hands: How many people here think the Intelligent Designer is NOT the Christian God?" To get people to admit they're Christian? Again, huzzah, the majority of us are. What of it? Sonfaro

Gino,

Er…I’ve been talking about one poster’s personal standpoint, a guy who has been quoting scripture at us, in referring to him as a Creationist. You haven’t understood the conversation at all, have you?

Not according to this:

My post wasn’t addressed to all IDers, just the ones who ARE Biblical Creationists but are too hypocritical to admit it.

That's plural.

I understand that as a political tactic ID won’t identify the suspected Designer, I really do. But on a practical side, virtually every ID supporter (save a few) think’s it’s his God.

Of course they do. Whatever shape or form that "God" might take, unless of course they're agnostic or adhere to an alternate "creation" - a necessary universe conceived through some "immanent principle or law in nature". Unless you claim to know the mind of every supporter of ID you're really just blowing smoke and making things up as it suits you. All evolutionists are atheists right? No. Care to respond to this: On a side-note; ex nihilo is an interesting choice of words, because if you build upon that – ex nihilo nihil fit – even a chance universe would, at some point, require a “poof” occurrence. The universe had a beginning, only nothing can come from nothing, so what but an outside force could have facilitated that event. One might postpone the inevitable by invoking the multiverse but a “first cause” or ex nihilo event is an inescapable consequence of our very existence. That would put you in the category of “creationist” too would it not.. Stu7

Sonfaro

So basically Christian = creationist?

I already made it quite clear that is NOT my position. Can't anyone here read for comprehension? :) GinoB

The link is to the "New World Encyclopedia," which is an online encyclopedia created by the Unification church (or, as they're more commonly known, the Moonies). I don't think that qualifies as a reliable reference. pilkington

So basically Christian = creationist? Didn't you say that wasn't your stance? Or was that just you being nice to Theistic evolutionists? I can think of three posters here who disagree with the majority: Bruce David Alan And, If I remember right Joseph Of course Im leaving out a few more pantheists and jewish posters, and Im pretty sure there were some agnostics who were interested at one point. The majority on this site is Christian. Huzzah! Doesn't mean we're all 'creationist'... whatever that term means for you today. Sonfaro

Stu7

You just can’t help yourself can you. It’s only obvious that if someone is a Christian the designer would be the Christian God — from their own personal standpoint that is, as ID draws no conclusions as to the nature of the designer.

Er...I've been talking about one poster's personal standpoint, a guy who has been quoting scripture at us, in referring to him as a Creationist. You haven't understood the conversation at all, have you?

What you fail to comprehend is there are a broad range of people who contribute here on Uncommon Descent (and the ID community as a whole). These “hypocrites” you seek might very well exist, but you’re firing scattershot at all and sundry in the hopes of hitting some assumed target.

I understand that as a political tactic ID won't identify the suspected Designer, I really do. But on a practical side, virtually every ID supporter (save a few) think's it's his God. Let's see a show of hands: How many people here think the Intelligent Designer is NOT the Christian God? GinoB

Please: NWE, article on ID:

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things. Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things. ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans). ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy.

Quite simple -- and quite coherent and strictly empirical in focus, so please stop playing at strawman- erecting and knocking- over. GEM of TKI PS: Check out the resources tab top of this and every UD page. kairosfocus

"Copernicus was wrong about the shape of orbits." Not only about that. For his heliocentric system Copernicus gave the following reason: "for thus says the great magician Hermes Trismegistus" (although I can't say it is a verbatim quote). Eugene S

Hi Petushka, I'm not 100% sure what the point of this post is dude, sorry. It's not really a refutation of what I'm saying, nor does it support GinoB really. It's... just kinda there... GinoB says IDers don't agree on everything. This is true. He also suggests we can all be wrong. Also true. Evolutionary Materialists (or whatever you wanna call 'em) don't agree on everything about their theory - theres some jostling about free will and morality and what-really-came-from-what-when and so forth, right? And it's possible that the entire theory may be wrong headed (though I'm sure for the most part they/you think that probability is slim to none) right? The thing about both sides is, at bare minumum, their collective disagreements pale to what is agreed upoon. For ID, it's that things that look to be designed should be investigated to see if they are. For EvoMats (or whatever you wanna call 'em) it's that from a single cell, unguided, sprouted the diversity of life, right? Shoot, ID can be incrementally improved and, from where I'm sitting, has. So again, making that statement says more (to me) about GinoB's particular attitude towards ID (and YEC/OEC Creationism too, I guess) than anything else. In other words, simply saying 'you can be wrong' is annoyingly obvious. Of course we 'can' be wrong. ANY belief/theory/idea CAN be wrong. The question is: is it? GinoB thinks IDers are... As do you from what I've seen. Great. Why bring it up in a post like nobody knows that already? Sonfaro

There are degrees of being wrong. Copernicus was wrong about the shape of orbits. Newton was wrong about the stability of solar systems, and about how gravity works at high velocities. But some wrong positions can be incrementally improved. The Darwinian position has been incrementally corrected with horizontal gene transfer and neutral drift. But the common descent of multi-celled organisms survives. Petrushka

GinoB,

Yet when I ask you point blank if you think the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo, you refuse to answer. You put yourself in the gutter with all the other hypocrites, not me.

You just can't help yourself can you. It's only obvious that if someone is a Christian the designer would be the Christian God -- from their own personal standpoint that is, as ID draws no conclusions as to the nature of the designer. What you fail to comprehend is there are a broad range of people who contribute here on Uncommon Descent (and the ID community as a whole). These "hypocrites" you seek might very well exist, but you're firing scattershot at all and sundry in the hopes of hitting some assumed target.

Created species ex nihilo. i.e. poofed them into existence, intact and fully grown, à la Genesis. Not created the first self replicators 3+ billion years ago and let them evolve naturally into species.

On a side-note; ex nihilo is an interesting choice of words, because if you build upon that - ex nihilo nihil fit - even a chance universe would, at some point, require a "poof" occurrence. The universe had a beginning, only nothing can come from nothing, so what but an outside force could have facilitated that event. One might postpone the inevitable by invoking the multiverse but a "first cause" or ex nihilo event is an inescapable consequence of our very existence. That would put you in the category of "creationist" too would it not.. Stu7

Scott

What you are describing are observations of variations, similarities, and differences, nothing more. Evolution is an explanation of them, not an observation of them.

But surely an explanation is what we are looking for!  Of course you can’t observe evolution.  It happened millions of years ago, at a pace that is far too slow for human observation, and involved molecular events that hard enough to observe today.  That is why we use the standard process of hypothesising an explanation and examining the indirect data which we have discussed above – all of which applies to a vast range of evolutionary events. What you are doing is a bit like saying we can’t make justify any explanations of how the earth’s geology because we couldn’t observe sedimentary rocks being laid down etc. Which links with your comments about ID: I wrote:

Meanwhile ID has zero hypotheses about how this change happened and actually rules itself out from producing such hypotheses.

And you responded

Especially after years of discussing this very subject, I fail to see why that is a problem. I can list countless theories that don’t address the mechanical causes of biological diversity. It’s pretty much nearly every scientific theory, ever.

Well yes – but most scientific theories don’t put themselves forward as explanations for the current diversity of life.  Are you saying ID is not an explanation of the diversity of life?  That Meyer is wrong when he describes it as an inference to the best explanation?  Because if it is meant to be an explanation of the diversity of life then surely it should at least hypothesise how at least one diversification event happened?     markf

-"True, I haven’t been here very long and haven’t seen all the various religious flavors under the ID big tent." Not everyone on this site who supports ID is religious. -"One of the (many) problems for ID is there is no one cohesive position." As far as I can tell ID's only position is that if things were designed it's possible to detect that design. I'm not sure it has to be anything else more than that - that seems a simple enough place to start looking for ways to test. And the Poof 6000 years ago peeps are the Creationists you're looking for. There are a couple on this site, true. But they usually tell you up front (ie Mr. Robert Byers[sp?]). -"There are as many different variations of ID as there are IDers. They all can’t be right, but they sure all can be wrong." Not trying to do a turnabout thingie but... well... this can be said about any position ever dude. So... that doesn't really say much aside from your personal opinion. Sonfaro

Sonfaro

Then I don’t think you’ve been on this site very long.

True, I haven't been here very long and haven't seen all the various religious flavors under the ID big tent.

”…create the laws then let things run, knowing what the outcome would be – being omnipotent and all that.” Isn’t that the Theistic Evolutionist stance right there in a nut shell? God set up how things would run and waited till a species became smart enough to interact with?

Pretty much, as far as my understanding of it goes.

As far as I can tell, and maybe I’m wrong, that’s one of the differences between ID and TE: whether the designer/God continued to work with his creation and whether that work left traces we could find. TE’s would say no.

One of the (many) problems for ID is there is no one cohesive position. Some say *poofed* 6000 years ago, some say evolution was God- started 3MYA and left alone to run, some say He still tinkers every day, some say the genome of all living things was 'front-loaded' and programmed to produce humans. There are as many different variations of ID as there are IDers. They all can't be right, but they sure all can be wrong. GinoB

Then I don't think you've been on this site very long. Also: -"...create the laws then let things run, knowing what the outcome would be – being omnipotent and all that." Isn't that the Theistic Evolutionist stance right there in a nut shell? God set up how things would run and waited till a species became smart enough to interact with? As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong, that's one of the differences between ID and TE: whether the designer/God continued to work with his creation and whether that work left traces we could find. TE's would say no. Sonfaro

You mean let evolution run its course with the occasional nudge? No, personally I wouldn't use the term Creationist. Sounds closer to theistic evolution, but that may be splitting hairs. I haven't met anyone who has argued that "tweak" position though. Seems to be all *poof* or create the laws then let things run, knowing what the outcome would be - being omnipotent and all that. GinoB

Interesting. So if someone believed God created the first replicators, but then continued to tweak them to his liking, you wouldn't consider them creationist then? Sonfaro

Sonfaro

Wait, all a ‘Creationist’ is to you is someone who believes in a christian God who created things from nothing?

Created species ex nihilo. i.e. poofed them into existence, intact and fully grown, à la Genesis. Not created the first self replicators 3+ billion years ago and let them evolve naturally into species. GinoB

-"Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo..." Wait, all a 'Creationist' is to you is someone who believes in a christian God who created things from nothing? Even Christian Darwinists believe that dude. I mean they think the process was Darwinian, but still... So basically, EVERYONE who believes in God is a creationist to you? Sonfaro

ScottAndrews2

It’s not a sidebar. It’s a sideshow. Within one post you “accuse” me of Christianity and then ID of being a front for atheism.

LOL! It's not a sideshow, it's a one-man clown circus and you're wearing the big red nose. No one 'accused' you of anything. I *ASKED* you who you thought the Intelligent Designer was, but you weren't honest enough to answer. Not a single person mentioned atheism except you, apparently as a dodge to direct attention away from your other dishonest shenanigans like quote-mining. Bottom line - I was 100% right in referring to you as a Creationist. You aren't here to discuss ID because you duck all questions about ID except to tell me ID can't explain anything. You're just here to flaunt your scientific ignorance and attack without understanding a well supported scientific theory. You might as well be posting on RaptureReady. GinoB

GinoB, It's not a sidebar. It's a sideshow. Within one post you "accuse" me of Christianity and then ID of being a front for atheism. I've made my point with you. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it, but really I do it for the sake of readers who perhaps deal with your type at work or school. My advice to them - reason a few times to gauge that person's sincerity, and then ignore them. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

(I was going for a little Vulcan/Kwai Chang Caine there. How did I do?)

Not too good. You still failed to answer the question if you think the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo. That would settle this whole sidebar as to if I'm correct or not in referring to you as a Creationist. I guess you have to toe the ID party line though: "IXSNAY ON THE ODGAY!" GinoB

Name-calling is tempting, and I'm sure I give in to a bit of mockery. But even that loses its humor and just starts to feel cruel, even when the other person seems to crave it. The words that express our ideas are the most powerful we have. Nothing else will succeed where they fail or pull where they cannot lead. (I was going for a little Vulcan/Kwai Chang Caine there. How did I do?) ScottAndrews2

Yet when I ask you point blank if you think the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo, you refuse to answer. You put yourself in the gutter with all the other hypocrites, not me. GinoB

GinoB, Even YEC accepts speciation, because speciation boils down to slight variation of the original. Joseph

GinoB,

I have no problems at all with anyone’s personal religious beliefs. It’s the hypocrites who lie about them to push a political (not scientific) agenda that frost me.

You can look high or low on this forum or any other, and you won't find anyone with less of a political agenda then me. And I'm certain that you have no idea what I believe. Right behind that I don't think you have any idea what you believe. It's not me or anyone else. You're just 'frosted.' ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

It doesn’t take fifteen minutes to read the abstracts and determine that the titles were not misleading – they are about variations among cichlid fishes.

LOL! So you're another one of those guys with ESP who can tell the contents of a paper without reading it. Not only that, but you stooped to quote-mining one small piece of info on studied species in one particular lake (out of dozens) in one paper. How honest of you. Did you happen to read at least this far in the Seehausen paper?

Abstract: Theoretically, divergent selection on sensory systems can cause speciation through sensory drive. However, empirical evidence is rare and incomplete. Here we demonstrate sensory drive speciation within island populations of cichlid fish. We identify the ecological and molecular basis of divergent evolution in the cichlid visual system, demonstrate associated divergence in male colouration and female preferences, and show subsequent differentiation at neutral loci, indicating reproductive isolation. Evidence is replicated in several pairs of sympatric populations and species. Variation in the slope of the environmental gradients explains variation in the progress towards speciation: speciation occurs on all but the steepest gradients. This is the most complete demonstration so far of speciation through sensory drive without geographical isolation. Our results also provide a mechanistic explanation for the collapse of cichlid fish species diversity during the anthropogenic eutrophication of Lake Victoria."

Why golly, it's got all of the things you say don't exist! Mechanisms for speciation, formation of biological diversity, empirically documented genetic changes accumulated through selection. Maybe if you tried actually reading the papers themselves instead of just quote-mining the abstracts you wouldn't be so clueless. But you won't. All we need now for you to complete the Creationist hat trick is to tell us "but they're still FISH!! I demand to see a carrot evolve into a cow with wings and do barrel-rolls over the pasture!!" GinoB

Onlookers, Note kairosfocus' public one-sided admonition to GinoB while in the meantime this thread (and the site) is being constantly spammed with creationist propaganda and Christian music. Truly this is hypocrisy. And, let us do a search for the word 'moron' in this thread alone and then we shall surely see from where the 'verbal grenades' are in fact being launched. END. Fossfur

GB: Please, stop tossing unnecessary verbal grenades around and at people. All that grenades are good for is blowing things up and hurting people. A much better approach is to actually address the evidence at stake, on the merits in light of epistemological considerations, i.e. what warrants, to what degree, given knowledge claims. Where, scientific claims in general reduce to abductive inferences to best [current] explanation. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

GinoB,

Tell us all Scott, how did you manage to read all three cichlid papers in the 15 minutes since I posted them?

It doesn't take fifteen minutes to read the abstracts and determine that the titles were not misleading - they are about variations among cichlid fishes.

I read them all before, which is how I knew exactly where to find them.

Stop, I'm getting chills. Did you read as far as this?

Despite the established ecological and neutral genetic differences, we lack estimates of gene sequence diversity between the benthic and limnetic species. Further, we have no information about how divergent natural selection may have affected these species’ genomes within the very short evolutionary time span since their divergence from a common ancestor.

IOW, they are comparing genomes between varying cichlid fishes, which, no surprise, are different. But the authors admittedly have no idea what role natural selection might have played, if any. They are saying this, not me. In short, they are holding up two fishes and telling us what is different between them. They are not offering a narrative of how they might have evolved. They don't even claim to. I would love to see you describe in your own words what you think these papers explain. Apparently you're one of those people who gets all googly-eyed at the sight of a research paper, any research paper, and judges them by their very existence, not their content. You're a useful tool for demonstrating to onlookers the inability of darwinists to articulate any explanation of any evolutionary change in evolutionary terms. That's how I justify the time I've just wasted. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

To illustrate my point, you produce papers referencing cichlid fish, cichlid fish, and what was that other one? Oh yes, chichlid fish. Throw them in a pond and they’ll start mating with each other.

Tell us all Scott, how did you manage to read all three cichlid papers in the 15 minutes since I posted them? I read them all before, which is how I knew exactly where to find them. How do you know they don't answer your demands when you never read them? You ready to discuss the details of the cichlid papers? Or are you going to keep making whiny excuses as you run skittering for the door? GinoB

GinoB, You must think I can't keep my eye on the ball. I stated earlier that in any case where you do bring actual evolutionary mechanisms together to posit an explanation, you are forced to drop out another component - that such mechanisms can explain significant changes, real diversity. It was plain English. Did you forget it? To illustrate my point, you produce papers referencing cichlid fish, cichlid fish, and what was that other one? Oh yes, chichlid fish. Throw them in a pond and they'll start mating with each other. I have predicted exactly what you would attempt to pass of as an explanation before you did, and told you in advance why it would be insufficient. Not bad for a liar. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

Where is the selection? How did selection apply to any particular genetic change, or how did drift? That is the evolutionary explanation. It’s not wrong. It’s missing.

The only thing missing is your honesty Scott. I've provided the information you say doesn't exist in at least six different papers now. You want to discuss the details of this one? It's about how cichlid fish diversified due to selection driven by genetically caused color differences. Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish It's open access so you can't use the excuse that you can't get to it. Ready to finally think for yourself for a change? GinoB

Mark,

Let us take whales. We have fossil evidence for how the first whale developed and subsequent development. We have phylogenetic trees of whales and it is certainly possible to create cladistic DNA trees of whales...So all three legs of the stool apply to this example – as they do to a vast range of examples.

What you are describing are observations of variations, similarities, and differences, nothing more. Evolution is an explanation of them, not an observation of them. Where is the selection? How did selection apply to any particular genetic change, or how did drift? That is the evolutionary explanation. It's not wrong. It's missing. ScottAndrews2

Stu7

Why do you feel the need to only address Biblical Creationists with your posts on this site?

The particular post you refer to was a response to ScottAndrews2 who AFAICT is a Biblical Creationist. I have no problems at all with anyone's personal religious beliefs. It's the hypocrites who lie about them to push a political (not scientific) agenda that frost me. GinoB

GinoB wrote: "My post wasn’t addressed to all IDers, just the ones who ARE Biblical Creationists but are too hypocritical to admit it." Why do you feel the need to only address Biblical Creationists with your posts on this site? It seems then the chip is on your shoulder, and your beef is with Christians/Creationists who support ID ;) I'm a hypocrite hey (a Christian), not sure how you reach that conclusion.. but I won't derail this thread any further, as Uncommon Descent is the one of the few sites on the interwebs that remains (mostly) free from the usual flame-filled drivel that often accompanies origins. Stu7

Fixed first link Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish GinoB

ScottAndrews2

Evolution, the cornerstone of biology, explains biological diversity through a series of genetic changes accumulated through selection and drift. Some disagree, but at least one example separates this knowledge from science-fiction. [Insert yours here.]

Since you have decided that being a liar for Jesus is your best defense, here are more examples (cichlid evolution in African lakes) for the lurkers Speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish Chromosome Evolution in African Cichlid Fish: Contributions from the Physical Mapping of Repeated DNAs Rapid evolution and selection inferred from the transcriptomes of sympatric crater lake cichlid fishes No one ever got to heaven by lying for their religion Scott. Do you think you'll be the first? GinoB

Scott

My previous post, 12.3 explained this in detail, and I haven’t seen a response to any of those points.

In 12.3 you identify a problem with each of the three sources of evidence: The fossil record does not have sufficient detail by itself to show how evolution happened.  It does not show the accompanying genetic change and does not show each incremental change or the selection pressures that accompany them.  I broadly accept that – the fossil record shows gross morphological change over time.  Biologists form hypotheses as to the genetic causes and why they were fixed. Current genetic change. Your problem here is that we don’t get to observe large enough changes – not surprising given the timescales  that evolution requires (although we do see quite significant changes due to artificial selection where we can step up the selection pressure and we do see things like ring species).  However, what we do see is a mechanism that given enough time could account for the morphological change in the fossil record. Cladistics and phylogenetic trees your problem here is that the specifics are missing.  I am not sure what you mean by this.  Such analyses can lead to evidence for when specific phylogenetic features appeared and also to very specific genetic change (e.g. haemoglobin).  I see this type of evidence as somewhere between the fossil record and observed current evolution.  Assuming observed mechanisms have applied through time these analyses give strong evidence of the order that these changes might have happened – sometimes in great detail. Now this is the line that really surprises me.

What is lacking is evidence that there is a stool supported by all the legs at once

Let us take whales.  We have fossil evidence for how the first whale developed and  subsequent development.  We have phylogenetic trees of whales and it is certainly possible to create cladistic DNA trees of whales – although I don’t know for certain if that has been done. Clearly our current observations of genetic and phylogenetic change apply to all of life – they are fundamental common mechanisms.  So all three legs of the stool apply to this example – as they do to a vast range of examples. I am not saying that I know whether the evidence is overwhelming (I guess it is because I see no reason to doubt the experts).  All I am saying is that the method makes enough sense that you need to be an expert to disprove it. I will return to the problems with ID as an alternative in a separate comment. markf

Stu7

No, what YOU need to do is respect the fact that not all ID’ers are Christians, for one David Berlinski is agnostic as far as I understand it

My post wasn't addressed to all IDers, just the ones who ARE Biblical Creationists but are too hypocritical to admit it. Like I said, if that doesn't apply to you then ignore it. Get the chip off your shoulder and simmer down. GinoB

GinoB,

You just repeated the same empty assertion that there is no evidence for evolutionary mechanisms while ignoring the scientific research and data I posted detailing such evidence.

Try a simple writing exercise. Take one or more elements of your 'evidence' and cite them in the form of a paragraph. I'll help you out with the first few words: Evolution, the cornerstone of biology, explains biological diversity through a series of genetic changes accumulated through selection and drift. Some disagree, but at least one example separates this knowledge from science-fiction. [Insert yours here.] Perhaps at this point you'll catch on that you are unable to complete this paragraph by pointing out one or two genetic differences between rodents or bats, or by laying out a series of transitional fossils. What was the first change? What effect did it have? Why was it selected? The next change, etc.? I'm typing out these responses for the sake of onlookers, so that they can judge for themselves which one of us is thinking this through. Notice that I can elaborate my thoughts without resorting to childish talk and analogies that actually work against me. That's much harder to do when you have nothing to say or can't compose your evidence to make a thoughtful case. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

All you have to do is explain any evolutionary change in those terms. Any. Anything. Something. Good grief, man, imagine something! Make something up! How generous can I be? If you can’t produce a real explanation or even make up a hypothetical one, then what separates the above paragraph from science fiction?

I already provided that information for you in post 8 above. There are papers with specific mechanisms identified for bat wing evolution, whale hind limb evolution, sea urchin evolution. You ignored the papers and pretended the research didn't exist just like you did now. You're rapidly descending into Joseph-like willful liar territory here Scott. You sure you want to ride that train? GinoB

GinoB, Listen buddy, you're coming off as extremely pretentious now: “That description fits many if not most of the posters here. If it doesn’t fit you then ignore it.” No, what YOU need to do is respect the fact that not all ID'ers are Christians, for one David Berlinski is agnostic as far as I understand it. I'm pretty sure you understand that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different concepts; the fact that you refuse to respect that on a site that is dedicated to Intelligent Design reveals more about you than myself or anyone else. Stu7

GinoB, Thank you for making my point. Landing gear can't fly. Left ailerons can't fly. Neither can vertical stabilizers. What is your comparison to airports and airplanes? Airplanes are successful, functional integrations of parts. Comparing evolutionary theory to them is begging the question. Unlike aircraft, evolutionary theory never assembles its components into a functional, explanatory whole. I've said over and over that there are no evolutionary explanations for significant diversifications in evolutionary terms. Evolution says that this genetic change occurred, had this phenotypic effect, and conferred a specific reproductive or survival advantage. Then another occurred. Or perhaps something varied, had no immediate effect, but drifted across the population and combined with other variations to produce effects requiring multiple variations. And over time these variations accumulate to produce new features, organs, behaviors, etc. All you have to do is explain any evolutionary change in those terms. Any. Anything. Something. Good grief, man, imagine something! Make something up! How generous can I be? If you can't produce a real explanation or even make up a hypothetical one, then what separates the above paragraph from science fiction? Airplanes. Good grief. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

Some people believe in the Christian god and have never heard of ID. Others are familiar with ID but disagree with on scientific grounds. Others agree with what ID proposes but do not believe in either God or the Christian god.

Which is exactly what I pointed out above: "That description fits many if not most of the posters here. If it doesn’t fit you then ignore it." How about you Scott? You're one of the guys who keeps quoting scripture in lieu of scientific evidence. Do you think the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created species ex nihilo? Be honest now.

You might have to think for yourself.

When will you start thinking for yourself and discussing the technical research I keep providing instead of regurgitating the standard evasive excuses? GinoB

ScottAndrews2

Each “leg” is sufficient. It is sufficient to demonstrate exactly whatever it does demonstrate. What is lacking is evidence that there is a stool supported by all the legs at once.

You're like a guy arguing that airplanes can't fly because each individual piece of the plane can't fly by itself: "Here's the landing gear. It can't fly!!" "Here's the left aileron. It can't fly!!" "Here's the vertical stabilizer. It can't fly!!" You're also making these silly claims at a busy airport, with planes soaring overhead, to a convention of pilots and aircraft designers. Good luck convincing anyone but yourself. GinoB

GinoB, Some people believe in the Christian god and have never heard of ID. Others are familiar with ID but disagree with on scientific grounds. Others agree with what ID proposes but do not believe in either God or the Christian god. Please reconcile those facts with this shoot-from-the-hip-think-later nonsense:

If you think that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created existing species ex nihilo, then you’re an Intelligent Design Creationist.

You can parrot what someone else told you, but they aren't here now to back you up. You might have to think for yourself. ScottAndrews2

If you think that the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God who created existing species ex nihilo, then you're an Intelligent Design Creationist. That description fits many if not most of the posters here. If it doesn't fit you then ignore it. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious. GinoB

ScottAndrews2

I will not waste time with you. I typed a detailed post explaining that I am aware of the evidence you mention, and why it does not equal the sum you think it does.

No Scott, you didn't do that. You just repeated the same empty assertion that there is no evidence for evolutionary mechanisms while ignoring the scientific research and data I posted detailing such evidence. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring valid critiques instead of addressing them is one of the major reasons ID has zero credibility in the scientific community. Empty rhetoric and hand-waving bluster just won't cut the muster. As I already noted and you keep demonstrating; running away from scientific evidence you can’t explain is a time-honored Creationist tradition. GinoB

GinoB wrote: What is it with you IDCers? Why do you think going “LA LA LA THERE’S NO EVIDENCE!!” somehow magically makes the evidence disappear?" Would you kindly cool it with these comments. You continually refer to Intelligent Design Creationists. Your intention is crystal clear and combined with your antagonistic approach, it's getting real old real fast. Take a page out of Elizabeth Liddle and co.'s book. In case you missed it, here is the definition of Intelligent Design. https://uncommondescent.com/id-defined Stu7

GinoB, I will not waste time with you. I typed a detailed post explaining that I am aware of the evidence you mention, and why it does not equal the sum you think it does. Print it out and take it to your teacher and see if he or she can assist you with a response. This will require actually reading it and reasoning on it, so I won't hold me breath. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

That is why I state repeatedly that there is no evolutionary explanation for any significant evolutionary change.

You keep stating it and I keep providing you with real world examples that show you're dead wrong. What is it with you IDCers? Why do you think going "LA LA LA THERE'S NO EVIDENCE!!" somehow magically makes the evidence disappear?

No evolutionary change is ever explained in terms of specific evolutionary mechanisms.

Why don't you give me an explanation, any explanation, for insular dwarfism. It's a real, observed phenomenon. What are the mechanisms that cause it? GinoB

Markf,

Meanwhile ID has zero hypotheses about how this change happened and actually rules itself out from producing such hypotheses.

Especially after years of discussing this very subject, I fail to see why that is a problem. I can list countless theories that don't address the mechanical causes of biological diversity. It's pretty much nearly every scientific theory, ever. The failure of evolutionary theory to explain anything has nothing really to do with ID, except that both subjects may be of interest to the same people. The failure of darwinism isn't something new from ID. It was there all along. They have nothing to do with each other.

What you are doing is taking each leg in turn and saying it is not sufficient. It is the presence of all three legs that makes the story compelling.

Each "leg" is sufficient. It is sufficient to demonstrate exactly whatever it does demonstrate. What is lacking is evidence that there is a stool supported by all the legs at once. That is why I state repeatedly that there is no evolutionary explanation for any significant evolutionary change. No evolutionary change is ever explained in terms of specific evolutionary mechanisms. That's good enough for a hypothesis. But somehow many seem to think that the idea has moved beyond that. Transitional fossils are, at best, evidence of transition. Phylogenetic trees are, at best, evidence of commonalities and perhaps descent. The specifics of that evidence are not what I am disputing, although there is room for that as well. But these lines of evidence are never combined to support the conclusion everyone wants them to. If they were, then someone would reply with an explanation of a significant evolutionary change in evolutionary terms in which neither the causes nor the effects must be assumed. My previous post, 12.3 explained this in detail, and I haven't seen a response to any of those points. ScottAndrews2

OK Joseph, you've convinced me you're a compulsive liar who will say anything to 'win' a discussion. You continually lie about your experiences, you lie about what was said, you lie about the evidence others produce. Your compulsively dishonest behavior is neither healthy nor productive. I truly feel sorry for you that you're so messed up mentally and emotionally. Go get some professional help. GinoB

GinoB:

The inputs to a GA are the raw performance specifications – in the case of the NASA antenna it was frequency range, maximum allowable power, maximum allowable weight, etc.

Exactly! That is all the information required.

The end results are the manufacturing specifications, how to physically build the thing – materials, dimensions, etc.

That is derived from the first spec- duh. And you only get a different result if you change specs.

That is so wrong as to be laughable.

Prove it or admit that you are a liar.

Like real biological evolution, GAs may converge on a local optima for a solution but will take a different path to get there every time.

Taking a different path does not mean you get a different result- only a moron would think so and here you are. The evidence of humans with something tail-like- no evidence of an atavism- IOW you are a liar and a moron.

Why do you feel the need to lie about virtually every topic discussed on this blog?

Sed the proven liar... Joseph

Joseph

GinoB: Where in the program is the information for the final results of a GA? The specifications- just as I said.

My word but you're an imbecile. The inputs to a GA are the raw performance specifications - in the case of the NASA antenna it was frequency range, maximum allowable power, maximum allowable weight, etc. The end results are the manufacturing specifications, how to physically build the thing - materials, dimensions, etc. Those two sets of information are not the same, not even close. A few weeks ago you bragged about having actually written GAs as part of your job. It's clear you were lying about that too.

And you only get a different result if you change specs.

That is so wrong as to be laughable. The random mutation part of the algorithm guarantees that you won't get the identical result. Like real biological evolution, GAs may converge on a local optima for a solution but will take a different path to get there every time.

The evidence of humans with something tail-like- no evidence of an atavism

Why do you feel the need to lie about virtually every topic discussed on this blog? GinoB

GinoB:

Where in the program is the information for the final results of a GA?

The specifications- just as I said. And you only get a different result if you change specs.

So when two construction firms are given a specification for a bridge and produce two completely different designs – one with wooden trusses, one metal with suspension cables – then the information in the two designs is identical?

No way the same specification produced two diffferent structures- you made that up because that is all you can do. And I am STILL waiting for your determination of atavistic for human tails- YOU made the claim support it or admit that you are a moron.

I just linked to a paper with the evidence.

The evidence of humans with something tail-like- no evidence of an atavism- IOW you are a liar and a moron. Joseph

Joseph

All the information is in the program.

Where in the program is the information for the final results of a GA? You're now claiming that when NASA used a GA to build a miniature RF antenna they already had the information for the final design? Then why didn't they just build the antenna directly? And why is it that if you run the GA multiple times you get a different end design each time? You keep typing and stupid contradictory things keep coming out.

The specification IS the information you moron. And yes there can be many ways to meet that spec- so what?

So when two construction firms are given a specification for a bridge and produce two completely different designs - one with wooden trusses, one metal with suspension cables - then the information in the two designs is identical? You're really outdoing yourself in the stupidity department today Joseph.

And I am STILL waiting for your determination of atavistic for human tails- YOU made the claim support it or admit that you are a moron.

I just linked to a paper with the evidence. Why are you lying about what was provided? You lie about things a lot I've noticed. GinoB

All the information is in the program. The specification IS the information you moron. And yes there can be many ways to meet that spec- so what? And I am STILL waiting for your determination of atavistic for human tails- YOU made the claim support it or admit that you are a moron. Joseph

Joseph

GinoB: Where does the new information in the designs created by Genetic Algorithms come from Joseph? The design.

That didn't answer the question. Quit evading and try again. Where does the new information in the designs created by Genetic Algorithms come from Joseph?

GB: If they had this info at the start why didn’t they just build the final product directly? They entered the specifications- the design meets those specifications.

The specification isn't the same as the information in the result. There can be a huge number of ways to meet the same spec with different designs. They all don't have the same information content. Where did the information in the final GA result come from Joseph?

GB: These atavistic tails on humans. Humans did NOT evolve from monkeys you moron.

No one said they did. The question you're avoiding is where did the information in empirically observed human tails come from Joseph? GinoB

GinoB:

Where does the new information in the designs created by Genetic Algorithms come from Joseph?

The design.

If they had this info at the start why didn’t they just build the final product directly?

They entered the specifications- the design meets those specifications. What atavistic tails on humans?

These atavistic tails on humans.

Humans did NOT evolve from monkeys you moron. So how did YOU determine the tails are atavistic? IOW for once support your bald assertions. Joseph

Joseph

GinoB: "Iterative processes filtered by selection and that retain heritable traits are empirically observed to form new morphologies, i.e new ‘information’." Nice bald assertion.

I keep forgetting you love the fussy child defense: THAR AIN'T NO DARN EVIDENCE!!! Where does the new information in the designs created by Genetic Algorithms come from Joseph? Was it 'jammed in' at the start by the programmers? If they had this info at the start why didn't they just build the final product directly?

GB: But at least you finally admitted that atavistic tails on humans shows they evolved from ancestors with tails. What atavistic tails on humans?

These atavistic tails on humans. Where did the information for these tails come from Joseph? GinoB

GinoB

Iterative processes filtered by selection and that retain heritable traits are empirically observed to form new morphologies, i.e new ‘information’.

Nice bald assertion.

But at least you finally admitted that atavistic tails on humans shows they evolved from ancestors with tails.

What atavistic tails on humans? Your ignorance doesn't mean anything here. Joseph

Joseph

There isn’t anything in genetics nor developmental biology that supports universal common descent. Cladistics are based on similarities and as such can be used to support a common design.

Oh dear, there goes the fussy child again... THAT AIN'T NO DARN EVIDENCE!!!

The processes that we observe around us do not support the claim of universal common descent unless the first organism was jammed with so much information it could lose information along the way and still give rise to the diversity we observe.

Iterative processes filtered by selection and that retain heritable traits are empirically observed to form new morphologies, i.e new 'information'. We already know you're too dense to grasp this simple fact.

And BTW ID says most of the changes occur by design- as in organisms were designed to evolve.

ID and you say a lot of stupid things you can't back up. But at least you finally admitted that atavistic tails on humans shows they evolved from ancestors with tails. GinoB

MarkF- There isn't anything in genetics nor developmental biology that supports universal common descent. Cladistics are based on similarities and as such can be used to support a common design. The processes that we observe around us do not support the claim of universal common descent unless the first organism was jammed with so much information it could lose information along the way and still give rise to the diversity we observe. And BTW ID says most of the changes occur by design- as in organisms were designed to evolve. Joseph

Note: Fantasy Island: Evolutionary Weirdness Does Not Favor Islands - July 2010 Excerpt: “We concluded that the evolution of body sizes is as random with respect to ‘isolation’ as on the rest of the planet,” he said. “This means that you can expect to find the same sort of patterns on islands and on the mainland.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100708b Amazing Insects Defy Evolution – October 2010 Excerpt: India spent tens of millions of years as an island before colliding with Asia. Yet the fossil record contains no evidence that unique species evolved on the subcontinent during this time, http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201010.htm#20101026a This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.html bornagain77

Thorton: "Another blatant denial of reality that would be funny if it weren’t so sad. How about insular dwarfism, where known evolutionary mechanisms cause a population isolated in a small geographic area (typically an island) to become reduced in size? The phenomena has been studied extensively and empirically observed numerous times." ==== The Evo-Proponants have pushed this agenda even with human examples in areas like Papua New Guinea where those supposed dwarfed dark skinned human beings where they tried to pushthese 3rd world folks(who were offended at what these experts who visted them had to say BTW) to be some sort evolutionary links and proof of evolution hard at work at downsizing. Yet on even incredibly smaller islands like Samoa and other Polynesian groups who live likewise live on tiny islands just a hop skip and a jump from the far larger land mass area which is Papua New Guinea, the physically large sizes of the average human beings in these populations living on these islands just seem to defy this Evolutionary fantasy wet dream of a failed theology. Which ultimately offers proof that it's not about the science. Eocene

Scott What you are doing is taking each leg in turn and saying it is not sufficient. It is the presence of all three legs that makes the story compelling. The fossil record tells us about macro level change. Current genetics and development tells us how organisms change. Cladistics tells us how similar genetic changes might account for the macro level change we see in the fossil record. Of course there is a lot of uncertainty and hypotheses are continually changing in the light of new data. But they are hypotheses and they are consistent with processes we see round about us right now. Meanwhile ID has zero hypotheses about how this change happened and actually rules itself out from producing such hypotheses. markf

ScottAndrews2

I appreciate that, because I’ve had some real jackass moments, and I’ve tried hard not to repeat that mistake. I don’t know who any of you are, but you are people, not objects for me to blow off steam at. (Although I’m not above disrespecting someone who really begs for it.)

Same here. I have nothing personal against you or any of the Intelligent Design Creationists posting here. But you have to expect when you keep posting nonsense about topics you obviously haven't studied and don't understand, you're going to get called on it.

Take archeeopteryx, and other apparent fossil transitions. Of course there is evidence of genetic change. Otherwise every fossil would be the same! Why would anyone deny that?

Why indeed? Maybe you better talk to many of the other ID supporters here who say it's impossible.

First, that change is not incremental. No one can say that there was a single genetic change, then another, then another, and back it up with fossil evidence.

Not knowing the exact number of genetic changes doesn't magically erase the evidence that such genetic changes did happen.

Second, whatever the genetic changes were, no one even knows what they were.

That is false and you know it. I just provided you with multiple examples where the specific genetic changes are known. What's the word for someone who posts a statement they know is false?

Third, it is unknowable whether selection, drift, both, or neither played roles, and what they might have been.

Again, not knowing the specific ratio for each part of the process doesn't alter one bit the huge amount of evidence that the process actually occurred.

From the above examples it be reasonably said that no significant evolutionary changes have ever been explained in terms of evolutionary mechanisms. Not one.

Another blatant denial of reality that would be funny if it weren't so sad. How about insular dwarfism, where known evolutionary mechanisms cause a population isolated in a small geographic area (typically an island) to become reduced in size? The phenomena has been studied extensively and empirically observed numerous times.

Why should we settle upon that as an explanation, even a provisional one

Because it explains in considerable detail the empirical observations we make and provides proven predictive power. If you have something that does those jobs better, let's hear it. GinoB

Mark, I appreciate that, because I've had some real jackass moments, and I've tried hard not to repeat that mistake. I don't know who any of you are, but you are people, not objects for me to blow off steam at. (Although I'm not above disrespecting someone who really begs for it.) That being said, here's my point. Here's what is missing. Evolution (Darwinism - whichever - you know) posits genetic variation which is then accumulated by selection, drift, etc. The trouble is that the evidence is always like stool with only one or two legs. Take archeeopteryx, and other apparent fossil transitions. Of course there is evidence of genetic change. Otherwise every fossil would be the same! Why would anyone deny that? First, that change is not incremental. No one can say that there was a single genetic change, then another, then another, and back it up with fossil evidence. Second, whatever the genetic changes were, no one even knows what they were. Third, it is unknowable whether selection, drift, both, or neither played roles, and what they might have been. Therefore it may be surmised that a series of fossils were caused by such evolutionary processes, but they cannot be evidence of it. There's only one leg of the stool, change. The other legs are missing. They are the transitions that evolution attempts to explain, not the evidence of it. Next, analogies with observed current genetic change. Now you may find every evolutionary mechanism at work. But now something else is missing - the degree of change. If the hypothesis is that such mechanisms can produce changes large enough to account for biological diversity, that leg is missing. We can attribute to those mechanisms what they are known to do. It's not that we are unwilling to make an extrapolation. But there are too many issues to warrant or allow it. We must limit the change from those mechanisms to what we observe. Then we have cladystics and phylogenetic trees. Like fossils, these may fit with an evolutionary narrative, but all of the specifics are missing. If they do in fact indicate descent, they cannot be attributed to any particular genetic changes, selection, drift, etc. That leaves you with a lot of "evidence," and sometimes you may think that we don't see it or prefer to ignore it. Neither is the case. We see the evidence. But it never comes together to support the claim. In every case some aspect of evolution must be assumed. There are no instances, zero, in which any significant diversification can be attributed to the proposed mechanisms of evolution. (Every time I say 'significant diversification' or the like I realize that it is subjective and leaves room for open-ended disagreement. It would be great it both sides agreed to define this.) There are other issues within those areas of evidence. But that is secondary. From the above examples it be reasonably said that no significant evolutionary changes have ever been explained in terms of evolutionary mechanisms. Not one. Why should we settle upon that as an explanation, even a provisional one? ScottAndrews2

Well by golly Gino, you really are a super genius, you falsified non-local quantum entanglement in molecular biology by merely Ad hominem attack instead of any actual experimental support. That sure saves a lot of time and expensive lab work! Sheer genius on your part my man :) bornagain77

BA77: "bornagain77October 30, 2011 at 10:53 am

Now Gino seeing as you are so much smarter than us ‘creationists’, (though many here on UD take extreme exception to that particular label), and seeing as you have seemingly put almighty God out of a job for explaining why life exists on earth,

"We're not Creationists, we just believe Almighty God created all life on Earth" ...and you wonder why no one takes you seriously. GinoB

Gino, you state:

Creationist when faced with his own scientific impotence resorts to classic Creationist denials!

Now Gino seeing as you are so much smarter than us 'creationists', (though many here on UD take extreme exception to that particular label), and seeing as you have seemingly put almighty God out of a job for explaining why life exists on earth, I was hoping you could help poor ole dumb me with a few questions I have about your atheistic neo-Darwinian model. First, could you please, scientifically, prove to me that materialism, upon which neo-Darwinism is built, is the true description for the foundation of reality??? And second, could you please explain, to poor ole dumb me, how 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum information came to reside in molecular biology on a massive scale by the 'local', within space and time, material processes of neo-Darwinism??? I think you may have to do something like falsify non-local quantum entanglement that has been extensively corroborated by numerous independent labs, but seeing how smart you think you are, you should be able to whip this falsification out by supper time!!!

Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts

bornagain77

Scott - perhaps you could take a look at my comment 12 below. Mark markf

ScottAndrews2

I’ll leave it for any onlookers who wish to judge. At 4.1, with archaeopteryx as the context, I challenged you to explain how the fossil record provides a history of individual genetic changes.

The fossil record record provides a history of the *results* of individual genetic changes, just as I said. I provided several examples. If you think we can do direct genetic testing of fossilized material itself you put yourself in an ignorance category with Joseph.

You responded with genetic differences between extant species, which are obviously genetically different. You don’t need a research paper to tell you that.

No, I didn't. I provided genetic evidence for the cause of the changes observed in the fossil record. Are you really so slow you don't understand the difference?

Having dodged that and all of my questions, apparently unable to answer them, you proceed to spike the ball and do an end-zone dance and talk some lame trollish smack

You mean I answered your questions and now you don't know what to do, so you fall back on the typical Creations whining and excuses. For a guy writing on a blog that's supposed to be about ID, you sure are hesitant to post any ID information on the provided data. GinoB

Double LOL! Creationist when faced with his own scientific impotence resorts to classic Creationist denials! - try to rewrite history - ignore scientific evidence that answers his questions. - declare victory while running for the door. Feel free to explain the data in those papers anytime Scott. Feel free to answer the question you keep running from: What good is an ‘explanation’ like ID that doesn’t explain? GinoB

GinoB, I'll leave it for any onlookers who wish to judge. At 4.1, with archaeopteryx as the context, I challenged you to explain how the fossil record provides a history of individual genetic changes. You responded with genetic differences between extant species, which are obviously genetically different. You don't need a research paper to tell you that. Having dodged that and all of my questions, apparently unable to answer them, you proceed to spike the ball and do an end-zone dance and talk some lame trollish smack. If I respond at all it's to allow all to watch you parade your impotence. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

My own fault for not stopping when I recognized that you were troll.

LOL! Funny how you Creationists always whine that anyone who points out your scientific ignorance and asks you questions you can't answer must be a 'troll'. Feel free to explain the data in those papers anytime Scott. Feel free to answer the question you keep running from: What good is an ‘explanation’ like ID that doesn’t explain? GinoB

GinoB, My own fault for not stopping when I recognized that you were troll. ScottAndrews2

Of related note:

Secrets of flocking revealed - October 26, 2011 Excerpt: Hemelrijk has studied schools of fish and flocks of starlings -- birds that can gather in flocks as large as 30,000 individuals.,,,"Each day they flap around for 30 minutes in the evening before sleep, and it's just spectacular the way they do this," Hemelrijk said.,,, "Initially in [the] 1930s, people thought it might be telepathy that guided flocks of birds. Now we know self-organization is at the heart," said Charlotte Hemelrijk of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.,,, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-secrets-flocking-revealed.html

Perhaps Hemelrijk feels she has explained swarming Starlings with her computer model, and with her paper thin evolutionary excuses as to why they do it, but something tells me she has not come anywhere near explaining the beauty inherent in Swarming Starlings,,,

starlings flocking - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY

,,,nor has Hemelrijk, despite how impressed she may be with her computer model, come anywhere near completely ruling out that the Starlings may actually be communicating 'telepathically'. In fact there is now direct experimental evidence that 'non-local' (beyond space and time) quantum effects play a foundational role in bird navigation, thus, if anything, completely opening up a plausible 'telepathic' cause;

Quantum compass for birds - January 2011 Excerpt: In the new research, physicists at the University of Oxford and the National University of Singapore calculated that quantum entanglement in a bird’s eye could last more than 100 microseconds — longer than the 80 microseconds achieved in physicists’ experiments at temperatures just above absolute zero,,, The new prediction interprets data from earlier experiments that hinted at a quantum basis for magnetic navigation in migrating birds. In 2006, researchers in Frankfurt, Germany, netted 12 European robins migrating from Scandinavia. Researchers locked the robins in a wooden room and applied small magnetic fields tuned to a frequency that would disturb entangled electrons, if the birds indeed relied on entanglement to navigate. The magnetic field, at 150 nanoTesla, was about 300 times weaker than Earth’s magnetic field, so it wouldn’t be expected to confuse the birds in the absence of an entanglement-based navigation system. But with the magnetic field on, the birds flew randomly instead of all flying in the same direction. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68484/title/Quantum_compass_for_birds

Poem, Music & Verse

Walt Whitman (1819–1892). Leaves of Grass. - When I heard the Learn’d Astronomer WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer; When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me; When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them; When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room, How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself, In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time, Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars. http://www.bartleby.com/142/180.html Jessie Colter - His Eye Is On The Sparrow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jvkqtnq6Q8 Matthew 10:31 "So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows."

bornagain77

ScottAndrews2

You are dodging the question. Did you think I wouldn’t notice? You said the fossil record contains a history of genetic changes. I asked you for a few of the genetic changes recorded in that history.

LOL! No you didn't ask for that. You asked for genetic changes responsible for the results documented in the fossil record, and that's exactly what you got. Probably surprised the heck out of you when I was able to come up with some good examples so easily. See, that's what happens when you argue from ignorance. You get slapped up side the head with actual scientific evidence. Then you bluster and wave your hands and make every excuse imaginable as to why the evidence doesn't count, just as you're doing now. Speaking of avoiding questions, I'll ask you for the third time: What good is an ‘explanation’ like ID that doesn’t explain? Feel free to give your explanation for the data in the multiple papers I've provided anytime, not that I expect you to read them.

That last part is beside the point. You made a claim, I called BS, and you responded with information unrelated to that claim and tried to get away with it. If you’re not even going to try than withdraw the claim or I’ll stop wasting my time with you.

Running away from scientific evidence you can't explain is a time-honored Creationist tradition. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if you whined and fled. GinoB

GinoBo, You are dodging the question. Did you think I wouldn't notice? You said the fossil record contains a history of genetic changes. I asked you for a few of the genetic changes recorded in that history. In turn you responded with identified differences between living organisms. My claim of BS still stands, with an extra pile added because you tried to get away with non-answer. Besides, is it news that rodents are genetically different from bats? Really? (Did you think I hadn't already read that paper?) There's the question-begging again. You point out the obvious, that they are different, then attempt to slide in darwinism as the explanation. Is the difference between rodents and bats, or even between rodent forelimbs and bat wings a single mutation? Why was it selected? Because it took off and started flying? More likely a number of mutations? What were they, and why was each selected? Answer that and you'll have the beginnings of an evolutionary explanation rather than a useless post-hoc narrative tacked on to what is plainly observable. That last part is beside the point. You made a claim, I called BS, and you responded with information unrelated to that claim and tried to get away with it. If you're not even going to try than withdraw the claim or I'll stop wasting my time with you. ScottAndrews2

GinoB, You whine like a little baby when I say "There isn't any evidence", yet that is all YOU and your ilk do with respect to Intelligent design! IOW you are an intellectual coward and a loser. Joseph

Joseph

YOU need some positive evidence to support your nonsensical claims.

Yeah Joseph, we know: THAR AIN’T NO DARN EVIDENCE!!! The UD owners must just love the intellectually challenged image you project for ID. GinoB

GinoB, YOU need some positive evidence to support your nonsensical claims. As for your alleged “experts” they don’t even know what makes a whale a whale, nor a bird a bird. And if you don’t know that then you cannot say that they can evolve from something non-whale or non-bird

Species are identified as either whales or birds by an agreed upon set of morphological traits.

LoL!!! Having certain traits does not tell us what makes a whale a whale nor a bird a bird. "Bird" is not a trait, neither is "whale". IOW thanks for once again proving your ignorance. Joseph

Joseph

There aren’t any observed mechanisms that can “evolve” a land mammal into a whale.

We all know the distinctive wail of the Joseph by now: THAR AIN'T NO DARN EVINENCE!!! Or TINAE!! as Dr. Liddle observed. You need to get a new writer.

As for your alleged “experts” they don’t even know what makes a whale a whale, nor a bird a bird. And if you don’t know that then you cannot say that they can evolve from something non-whale or non-bird

Species are identified as either whales or birds by an agreed upon set of morphological traits. And we can indeed follow the fossil evidence back in time and see a juxtaposition of such traits between different lineages, as is the case of archy having a mix of traits between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds. GinoB

GinoB, Perhaps YOU could stop acting like a gullible fool and actually present some science. You don't even know what makes a whale a whale- IOW only your ignorance sez whales "evolved" from land mammals. All you have is circumstantial evidence that can be used for alternative scenarios- circumstantial evidence is nothing more than "If I didn't believe it I wouldn't have seen it"- IOW prejudice is what can be read in those papers. Joseph

Joseph, you could stop acting like a petulant child for once and give us your explanation for the data in the papers. But you won't. GinoB

markf, There aren't any observed mechanisms that can "evolve" a land mammal into a whale. As for your alleged "experts" they don't even know what makes a whale a whale, nor a bird a bird. And if you don't know that then you cannot say that they can evolve from something non-whale or non-bird. Joseph

GinoB, Your "evidence" amounts to "If I didn't believe it I wouldn't have seen it." Ya see there still isn't any way to test the claim that common ancestry is the only explanation of the data. So just because evotards are gullible doesn't mean the rest of have to be. Joseph

markf you state:

It doesn’t even begin to try to explain what happened. All it can do is pick holes in other explanations.

This statement of yours is simply false, as is clearly illustrated by Dr. Michael Behe's latest paper:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

Which explains the extreme constraint we witness for variability:

Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 materialists never mention the fact that the variations found in nature (such as peppered moth color and finch beak size) which are often touted as solid proof of evolution are always found to be cyclical in nature. i.e. The variations are found to vary around a median position with never a continual deviation from the norm. This blatant distortion/omission of evidence led Phillip Johnson to comment in the Wall Street Journal: "When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble."

Which agrees with Dr. John Sanford's work in Genetic Entropy;

Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086 Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf

Which agrees with Dr. David Abel's null hypothesis:

The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html

Which agrees with the pattern seen in the fossil record:

The Truth About Evolution - Transitional Fossils Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution.,,, Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are: a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today. b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown. c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish. d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown. e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record. f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found. g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown. h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown. i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown. j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds. "The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion." Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46

Which agrees with the evidence we have from population genetics:

"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - EXPELLED EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840

Now markf, you may not like the implications of 'top down' design one bit, but, despite you personal atheistic, nihilistic, preferences for what the evidence should look like, it is clearly thoroughly disingenuous of you to say that ID doesn’t even begin to try to explain what happened, for as far as I can see ID explains what we find in ALL the evidence extremely well. Moreover ID does this from first principles of science, which is far more than I can say for neo-Darwinism for neo-Darwinism which doesn't fit the evidence well at all, nor does it even have a foundation in science in which to refer to for its basis!!!: etc.. etc.. etc.. verse and music:

Genesis 1:21 & 25 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.,,,,, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. U2 - Magnificent http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7K6DDLNX

bornagain77

markf, please explain exactly how 'reasonable and polite' are grounded in the atheist's materialistic worldview. bornagain77

Scott (I assume that is your name) – you are one of the most reasonable and polite IDists on this forum – and it would be sad to alienate you because of the tone of comments.  However,  GinoB makes some very strong points. 1) Genetic variation plus natural selection plus genetic drift is a potential explanation of the fossil evidence for which it is possible to gather evidence. 2) As well as the actual fossil record (which is of course can only give us a very limited sample of the phenotypes of organisms at the time) there are other sources of evidence for what happened genetically (as GinoB’s references indicate) – for example: Analogies with observed current genetic change Cladistic analysis of the genes of living organisms Naturally there is a lot of uncertainty about exactly what happened millions of years ago and hypotheses will change in the light of evidence – but that is quite different from saying “we just don’t know”.  The fossil record provides strong evidence as to the pattern of physical change.  Cladistic analysis plus our understanding and observation of current change in living things is very strong evidence for how change happened in the past.  You may disagree with the conclusions of the experts who have spent their careers studying this evidence.  But if you accept that such things as a fossil record, cladistic analysis and analogy with current change count as evidence then it is wrong to describe it as “shows a willingness to tell and believe any story when necessary to shield the candle of their faith from the blizzard of reality.” unless you are also very familiar with this evidence.  Meanwhile what about ID?  It doesn’t even begin to try to explain what happened.  All it can do is pick holes in other explanations. markf

Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed http://vimeo.com/30921402 Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032568

Here are some quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:

"The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts - Paleontologist "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." - Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." Robert L Carroll - Paleontologist "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species "The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism:. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear…. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, - Evolution's Erratic Pace - 1977 "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group." (C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, p. 866 (1988, 8th ed.). How to Fill In Missing Fossils: Imagine Them – Quote from author of article; “If you visualize evolutionary relationships in the form of branching diagrams and then plot them on a time scale, new patterns begin to emerge, with gaps in the fossil record suddenly filling rapidly.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201105.htm#20110509a

bornagain77

ScottAndrews2

GinoB: "But the fossils do document smooth morphological changes over time, physical changes we know today are caused by genetic changes. The genetic record of today does document the genetic history and degree of interrelatedness of different lineages." Interesting how you put those thoughts together, as if you think they complement one another.

Sorry for you, but they do complement one another. For example, we've recently been discussion cetacean evolution. The genetic evidence shows cetaceans are most closely related to Artiodactyla - pigs, peccaries, hippopotamuses, camels, deer, giraffes Inclusion of cetaceans within the order Artiodactyla based on phylogenetic analysis of pancreatic ribonuclease genes. There is also complementary fossil evidence in the form of Artiodactyla type ankles and vertebrae in proto-whale fossil specimens. Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls It's both funny and sad that Creationists like you and Joseph love to claim there is no evidence when there are literally tens of thousands of scientific papers only a few mouse clicks away. GinoB

Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/

Moreover, identical forms of echolocation show up in widely divergent species from whales. This finding is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective, yet this finding is exactly what we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse optimal designs:

Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010 Excerpt: The multiple, independent origin of echolocation in these animals (twice in bats and once in toothed whales) exemplifies convergence,,, When examined from an evolutionary perspective, convergence doesn’t make much sense.,,, the latest research demonstrates that—again, from an evolutionary perspective—the genetic and biochemical changes that account for the emergence of echolocation in bats and dolphins is identical. Given the random nature of the evolutionary process, this recent discovery doesn’t match what evolutionary biologists would expect to find. But both the discovery and convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator. http://www.reasons.org/convergence-drives-evolution-batty Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011 Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes Point to Common Design - February 2011 - Podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-02-21T10_59_16-08_00

But neo-Darwinism is experimentally shown to historically contingent thus ruling out evolutionary convergence:

Lenski's Citrate E-Coli - Disproof of Convergent Evolution - Fazale Rana - video (the disproof of convergence starts at the 2:45 minute mark of the video) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 The Long Term Evolution Experiment - Analysis Excerpt: The experiment just goes to show that even with historical contingency and extreme selection pressure, the probability of random mutations causing even a tiny evolutionary improvement in digestion is, in the words of the researchers who did the experiment, “extremely low.” Therefore, it can’t be the explanation for the origin and varieity of all the forms of life on Earth. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i11f.htm

The loss of 'convergent evolution', as a argument for molecular sequence similarity, is a major blow to neo-Darwinian story telling:

Implications of Genetic Convergent Evolution for Common Descent - Casey Luskin - Sept. 2010 Excerpt: When building evolutionary trees, evolutionists assume that functional genetic similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. Except for when it isn't. And when the data doesn't fit their assumptions, evolutionists explain it away as the result of "convergence." Using this methodology, one can explain virtually any dataset. Is there a way to falsify common descent, even in the face of convergent genetic similarity? If convergent genetic evolution is common, how does one know if their tree is based upon homologous sequences or convergent ones? Critics like me see the logic underlying evolutionary trees to be methodologically inconsistent, unpersuasive, and ultimately arbitrary. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/implications_of_genetic_conver037841.html

This following video takes a honest look, from the population genetics equations evolutionists use themselves, at just what neo-Darwinian evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain supposed whale evolution from a truly scientific point of view:

Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203 Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011 Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.

further note:

Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

bornagain77

Link to the last paper seems hosed. Try this one Transfer of a large gene regulatory apparatus to a new developmental address in echinoid evolution GinoB

ScottAndrews2

I’m calling BS. If the fossils document a history of genetic changes, then tell me what at least three of those genetic changes were. Happy Googling.

Don't have to Google, know some off the top of my head. Genetic changes responsible for bat wing development identified: Molecular Determinants of Bat Wing Development Genetic change for non-expression of Tbx4 gene responsible for cetacean loss of rear limbs Sequence Variation in the Tbx4 Gene in Marine Mammals Key gene in sea urchin evolution identified: Transfer of a large gene regulatory apparatus to a new developmental address in echinoid evolution We already know ID doesn't explain the above data, because ID doesn't explain anything. Tell me again - what good is an 'explanation' like ID that doesn't explain? I'll bet you're too lazy and won't read Endless Forms Most Beautiful either. Why do any work for knowledge when ignorance is free? GinoB

GinoB,

But the fossils do document smooth morphological changes over time, physical changes we know today are caused by genetic changes.

Really, physical changes are cause by genetic changes? I'm sure that was coming real soon on my 365 Useful Facts of Science Calendar, but thanks for the heads up.

But the fossils do document smooth morphological changes over time, physical changes we know today are caused by genetic changes. The genetic record of today does document the genetic history and degree of interrelatedness of different lineages.

Interesting how you put those thoughts together, as if you think they complement one another. I'm calling BS. If the fossils document a history of genetic changes, then tell me what at least three of those genetic changes were. Happy Googling. Or did you mean that in the tautological sense, that physical changes indicate genetic changes, which we already knew? In that case, all you really have, optimistically, is a history of physical changes. Now, explain those physical changes with evolution. Explain them in terms of genetic changes, the phenotypic and behavioral effects, and why each one of those individual changes were selected. Or just give me a few. At this point it becomes apparent that what you have is a series of fossils. I'll allow that they may be transitional, but you have no evolutionary explanation, and neither does anyone else. You show a series of fossils and then beg the question - this must indicate a series of variations and selections because - because - because it must! Begging the question, textbook. This couldn't be simpler. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Explain an evolutionary change in terms of evolutionary mechanisms. Or, more likely, don't. Shift the focus to your willfully ignorant, capriciously demanding misconception of ID. You may as well keep strumming that chord, seeing that you don't have any other. ScottAndrews2

Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence (notes in description) - video http://vimeo.com/30926629 bornagain77

ScottAndrews2

Now you’re just trolling.

No, I'm just asking for the ID explanation for a huge body of scientific data. You tell me ID can't begin to explain any of it, and I believe you. Sorta makes me question what good is ID in science when it has zero explanatory power though.

What is the evolutionary explanation? Can you drill down a little deeper than ‘something apparently varied and something was apparently selected?’ How can it get past you that none of these evolutionary transitions are ever, ever explained in terms of evolutionary mechanisms?

What do you want to know? In the 180-150 MYA time frame there existed dozens of different species of closely related feathered dinosaurs. At least one (possibly more) of the lineages went on to evolve into modern birds; the others eventually went extinct. Because all are so similar it's extremely difficult to place exactly which species belongs in which lineage. Hence the great uncertainty about archaeopteryx. There is a whole science - evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo - that deals with the evolutionary mechanisms and genetic basis for body plans. There's a good layman's introduction book called Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll that would probably help you.

Do you realize that fossils document neither incremental genetic changes nor reasons for selection, and that to apply those factors as mechanisms after the fact is merely begging the question?

But the fossils do document smooth morphological changes over time, physical changes we know today are caused by genetic changes. The genetic record of today does document the genetic history and degree of interrelatedness of different lineages. Something has to explain the data. I'd ask you for the ID explanation for them but you already told me there is no ID explanation. GinoB

Bingo! Get it?! His name is bingo- "There was a blog that had a troll and bingo was his name-o G-I-N-O-B--- I mean Joseph

GinoB, Now you're just trolling. I've asked you serious questions and you have retreated to rhetoric. I could "name" half a dozen or more evolutionists posting here who argue their points in sincerity, even though we rarely come to any agreement. Perhaps you should try the darwins-god.blogspot.com forum. The blog entries are quite good, but the discussions are more on your level. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

It boggles my mind that, when confronted with the flaws and contradictions in your so-called theory, you retreat to the position that there is no competing explanation. Did it ever occur to you that “no one knows” is an answer, and sometimes the more honest and accurate one?

Seems like lots of things science is knowledgeable about boggle your mind. But that says more about you that it does any deficiencies in mainstream science. Thanks however for admitting that ID has no clue and can't begin to explain the large and growing body of evidence for feathered dinosaurs in paleontology. Is there anything in any branch of science that ID does explain? GinoB

GinoB, It boggles my mind that, when confronted with the flaws and contradictions in your so-called theory, you retreat to the position that there is no competing explanation. Did it ever occur to you that "no one knows" is an answer, and sometimes the more honest and accurate one? Besides, how can the evolutionary explanation be right when there is none? Evolution is variation and selection, plus whatever the latest fad is. What is the evolutionary explanation? Can you drill down a little deeper than 'something apparently varied and something was apparently selected?' How can it get past you that none of these evolutionary transitions are ever, ever explained in terms of evolutionary mechanisms? Do you realize that fossils document neither incremental genetic changes nor reasons for selection, and that to apply those factors as mechanisms after the fact is merely begging the question? Somehow your comment implies that you have already provided an explanation, and that ID should offer another in response. I, for one, would love to know what you think you have explained. As soon as the 'cornerstone of biology' which unlike ID, claims to explain diversity offer a more meaningful explanation and supports it with more than back-dated narratives, so will I. ScottAndrews2

ScottAndrews2

Time and time again the argument is made that the probability of some particular evolutionary pathway is mitigated by the fact that evolution was searching for one of many possible targets.

Scott, since you obviously know more about paleontology than the paleontologists, could you please give us the ID explanation for the data? Was archaeopteryx designed as it, or did it evolve from an earlier design? What about other feathered dinosaurs, like microraptor gui and anchiornis? Where do they fit into the ID explanation of things? You keep telling us evolution is wrong, but when will you tell us what is right? GinoB

He found a way to jam it in, to be Darwinian, not convergent.

First: this sentence makes no sense. Convergent evolutionary pathways are not 'un-Darwinian'.

If anyone believes it.

Believe it? At least try and understand it first. Fossfur

Eagle owl at 1000 frames per Second towards a camera http://www.dogwork.com/owfo8/ bornagain77

Time and time again the argument is made that the probability of some particular evolutionary pathway is mitigated by the fact that evolution was searching for one of many possible targets. Then, when it's convenient, they turn around and marvel that it apparently must have hit the same target over and over and over. While not a logical contradiction, is shows a willingness to tell and believe any story when necessary to shield the candle of their faith from the blizzard of reality. (As a side point, no darwinist ever attempts to calculate those probabilities. That's something you can only do if you understand how and why something takes place. And yet if someone else dares to suggest that it is improbable, they ask, 'exactly how improbable?' Their own ignorance of the process which is supposedly the cornerstone of all biology becomes their defense. Somehow it is the most well-supported theory since gravity and yet no one can define it clearly enough to make even the vaguest, generous estimate of the probability of any given outcome. It's all 100%, retroactively.) Don't just listen to it. Smell it. It's not a pleasant fragrance. ScottAndrews2