When backed into a corner Gareth got stupid and belligerent. In answering the question of p.falciparum he must have been channelling Lamarck – according to Gareth p.faciparum didn’t evolve any complexity because it didn’t need any. I guess if p.falciparum had to stretch its neck to reach the higher leaves its progeny would have longer and longer necks as Larmarck believed happened with the giraffe. Must be p.falciparum has no need to survive in temperate climates or use any transmission vector other than mosquitos so that’s why it doesn’t bother evolving.

After getting stupid Gareth then got belligerent and demanded to know where random mutation stops and ID starts and if I didn’t answer it I was admitting defeat. Basically the asshat was asking where is the edge of evolution. I sincerely doubted he would bother reading Behe’s book entitled (duh) “The Edge of Evolution” for the answer so I just axed him instead.

Does the moderation policy explicitely state that belligerent stupidity is cause for termination?

please explain where common descent ceases to occur and design takes over and (2) is all life irreducibly complex, and if not explain which life is not irreducibly complex.

…indicates that you don’t comprehend the subject matter.

For 1. design IS the cause of common descent, which is not really a process, rather it’s a pattern imputed to the observations of nature made by observers from the outside. Common descent has functioned more as an abstract heuristic akin to the practice of making sense of groups (who’s in, who’s out) and of then relating those groups by a process of elimination. Although it should be noted that ID is compatible with Universal Common Descent, Common Descent through multiple LUCAs, and other scenarios.

For 2. components of all life are irreducibly complex. Not all components are IC nor are they CSI. The question is whether unguided Darwinian processes (RM+NT, lateral gene transfer, symbiogenesis, reliance on hox genes, whatever) can produce IC and/or CSI components via Indirect Pathways. Unguided Darwinian processes “probably” (as in, my opinion) ARE capable of producing components that are composed of 3-6 parts (for comparison the flagellum is 41 and the most observed I’ve ever heard of is 2 or 3). Again, part of ID research is determining the limits of unguided Darwinian processes. Agreeing that there are beneficial mutations and limited instances of small changes is in no way a threat to ID or an admission of some sort…we’ve been saying this for years to deaf ears.

You apparently missed this comment I made above: “A series of small changes have to come about independently, each having positive selective pressure, and then indirectly come together to form a new whole.” This is called an Indirect Darwinian pathway. The reason a Direct Darwinian pathway isn’t an option is due to Irreducible Complexity. Darwinists do not like to tacitly admit that IC is a factor but that’s why all current research is now directed upon Indirect Darwinian pathways.

Your understanding of the subject matter is in error. The simplistic view of Darwinism of the past that you apparently adhere to is wrong.

For your information, the differences are accounted for by random mutation and natural selection.

That’s speculative. Unfortunately for the chance theory nothing but simple changes have been observed to result from random mutation. In the past one could claim that if enough generations could be observed we’d see the simple mutations piling up to become complex new structures. However, now that we’ve observed the changes occuring at the nucleotide level in p.falciparum (see Behe’s “Edge of Evolution”) over billions of trillions of generations and found no novel complex structures emerging in all that mutational opportunity, it seems on the face of it to have verified the predictions of ID that RM+NS is effectively incapable of accounting for the extant complexity we see in living things.

I’ve yet to see an explanation from anyone about why p.falciparum failed to generate any novel complexity greater than two or three interdependent point mutations when given vastly more opportunity (generations) than all the mammals that ever lived. The ID prediction was verified in real life while the random mutation prediction was falsified. Please address this enigmatic problem for the chance theory. Continued silence on it will be taken as an admission of defeat.

“Patrick nailed it down as for your frame of mind. You are making claims which we disagree with, and we show hard empirical evidence of why your claims will not work.”

Sorry, I missed the evidence – I got a few bits and pieces about things being broken, but no real evidence. If you want to provide some then do so.

“But you, instead of providing hard empirical evidence to back up your claims, restate your beliefs as if this is a valid refutation with empirical evidence. Maybe in your mind you refuted us.”

I wasn’t trying to refute anything. Our discussion centred on whether evolution had been falsified, based on your claim that there were no beneficial mutations, which I think we both concluded was not the case – there are beneficial mutations. So that attempt to falsify evolution foundered. I you want to try again with a different line, I’m happy to listen.

“You state the fossil record is proof! We disagree! Thus you must prove that the jumps seen in the fossil record are possible on the molecular level. In other words, Show us a beneficial mutation on the molecular that does not in reality break something, or modify a preexisting function, and show how it improves the organism above the level of the genetic entropy of the parent species, if you want to be taken seriously on this site!”

Er, our discussion was based on your (incorrect) claim that there are no beneficial mutations. Now, if you are saying that we are finished with that, and that there is some other thing that falsifies evolution then go ahead and recast your point in a more coherent form.

“[Me]I think there are many ID proponents that don’t accept common descent as well.

[You] True, we aren’t that gullible. We, those who do not accept UCD, understand that in order for the concept to be scientific it must account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed. And that is because the similarities can be accounted for via convergence and common design. Therefore if UCD is scientific then so are convergence and common design.”

Well, it was DaveScot who said that many ID proponents don’t dispute common descent, so take it up with him. For your information, the differences are accounted for by random mutation and natural selection. And the logic in your last sentence is flawed – it’s the evidence that counts, not the validity of another theory.

Utterly wrong. You don’t need a “valid research programme” at all. All you need is evidence. It doesn’t matter if that comes from a research program, or if an amateur fossil hunter strolled by a cliff on a beach or in a quarry and accidentally found the fossil in the strata. It’s the evidence that counts, not whether there was a formal research program that provided it.

“LoL! You are confusing the alleged history of life with the theory of evolution. That you don’t understand the difference is very telling.”

Well, the history of life is important, but so are the anatomical similarities – the vertebrae, the lungs, the limbs etc.. Together they provide firm backing for evolution.

“The fossil record is no friend of the theory of evolution. The vast majority of fossils are of marine inverts. And guess what? We do not see any major changes in that vast majority.”

First sentence – wrong, it does, and anyone with who’s bothered to give more than a cursory glance at the fossil record can see it. Try it sometime. Second sentence – yes there are a lot of marine invertebrates but so what? There ARE plenty of invertebrates too. Presumably you’ve heard of plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs to name but two. Third sentence – wrong. We see plenty of changes in marine invertebrates. There are species that are very similar today to their fossil ancestors but so what? They have been successful species – scallops and mussels included – and thrive in todays environments as much as they did in prehistoric ones.

“There isn’t any biological or genetic data which even demonstrates that the changes required are even possible.”

Whereas there is data that they’ve been intelligently designed?

“To say nothing of the four mammalian limbs, also inherited from fish ancestry.

Umm only if the same genes control both fish limbs and mammalian limbs- but they do not.”

Not necessarily tru. The mammalian ones could well be different but evolved from earlier fish species.

“You’re the disappointment Gareth. You are also very gullible.”

My disappointnment was at your tone, rather than your position. On gullibility – well, I think someone who thinks there are 25 million year old artefacts shouldn’t cast stones there…

“The true origins article is full of scientific facts. The theory of evolution is full of wishful thinking.”

True Origins considers the age of the Earth to be around 6000 years. And you think its scientifically reliable?

“BTW with sickle-cell anemia, if they didn’t have anyone to take care of them, they would die. IOW they may not get malaria but they would die very young anyway.”

Possibly, but thepoint is they live longer on average than people with malaria, and hence have more prospects for reproduction and hence passing on the trait.

“It isn’t an advantage unless you have someone healthy to take care of you.”

But it IS an advantage over those who catch malaria and dies. That’s the point.

“BTW those 25 million year old artifacts were genuine.”

Evidence, please.

“Also there isn’t anything in the theory of evolution which states that mammals had to evolve from amphibians which had to evolve from fish.”

Yes there is. Where did mammals get their vertebrae, lungs, limbs etc from then?