Home » Intelligent Design » The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out.

Continue reading here.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

202 Responses to The Man Behind the Curtain: Evolutionists React to The Voyage

  1. Nothing like this happened to the otherwise furious evolutionists. Their views were fairly and accurately represented. There was no message manipulation. There was no clever editing of the interviews to produce a false image of evolution; rather, the problem is that the interviews accurately show the real image of evolution.

    I take it from that comment that you were directly involved in filming and editing the interviews?

  2. I haven’t followed the link priovided, I’m done wasting my time on the ‘Dr.’s articles.

    What I will say is that the first paragraph that appears on uncommon descent claiming…

    is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up

    Well, umm, anybody that follows this ‘debate’ between religious people trying to keep god in the classroom, and the scientists spending their life trying to further mankind’s understanding of his surroundings, knows all the lies and deceit that the Creationists and Intelligent Designer-ist love to use.

    You also know all the true-sounding but blatantly false facts that are used to dissuade the ‘ignorant of the intricacies’ public away from hard earned science.

    He who only uses lies and deceit should not throw the first stone! For me, growing up in a fundamentalist home, the thing that drove me away from ‘the faith’ the fastest was all the lies on the internet the ‘faithful’ would not hesitate to use. Despicable, especially since they have ‘the truth’, why would you need to lie about it!

    As always, DO SOME *beeping* SCIENCE!

    and I love you all! :)

    P.S. I do apologise for the apparent tone of this post, but the ‘Dr.’ is constantly bashing ToE with baseless articles that don’t actually say anything except give the ‘the faithful’ tenuous hooks on which to hang their faith and feel safe. I not joking when I say do some science!

  3. ok, I admit, I couldn’t help follow the link…

    And what I said above stands, Expelled is the most deceiptful film in every regard. If you believe uncritically everything that fits what you want to be true, you’ll never know whats true! Watch it with an open mind, and go research what sounds too ‘good’ to be true.

    love you all.

  4. Cornelius, I hope you’re not implying that The Voyage That Shook the World is somehow supportive of intelligent design. It’s from the Young Earth Creationist organization Creation Ministries International ( http://creation.com/ ), the mothership (sort of) of Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis (which is not exactly friendly to intelligent design).

    And like Expelled, it’s being marketed solely to religious venues, not scientific venues – it’s blatantly religion, not science.

    Or is this another example of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

  5. I take it from that comment that you were directly involved in filming and editing the interviews?

    Are those complaining about the film accusing the filmmakers of doing this?

  6. Nnoel– and the scientists spending their life trying to further mankind’s understanding of his surroundings,

    If life is designed how would it further mankind’s understanding of his surroundings to hide the fact?

  7. Nnoel, why are you putting Hunter’s title in quotes?

    Here’s his bio

    By using quotes you are claiming that a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology from the University of Illinois is somehow not legit.

  8. Nnoel,

    How, exactly, is “Expelled” deceitful?

    Is it because it exposed the anti-IDists for what they are?

    The theory of evolution was built on ignorance and is sustained by ignorance.

    Is ignorance a good way to further mankind’s understanding?

    That doesn’t seem right…

  9. Nnoel, why are you putting Hunter’s title in quotes?

    I would have to agree, although his perspective on Evolutionary Science might be bizare, unless you actually have a good reason to question how he earned his qualifications then you should assume that when he was awarded them he also deserved them.

    Otherwise you are no better than DaveScott:(From memory)
    “Who are these chuckleheads and how do they ever get higher degrees”

  10. Nnoel,

    Well, umm, anybody that follows this ‘debate’ between religious people trying to keep god in the classroom, and the scientists spending their life trying to further mankind’s understanding of his surroundings, knows all the lies and deceit that the Creationists and Intelligent Designer-ist love to use.

    First of all, the primary arguments against the theory of evolution are not religious. The alleged merits of this theory have been thoroughly rebuked with scientific arguments, logic, realistic numbers, and real-world observations. Again, this movement is not to “keep” God in the classroom, as the evolutionists made sure he remained absent from this scene some time ago. The primary purpose of this movement is to shed light on the weaknesses of Darwin’s theory and keep the “free” marketplace of ideas open to other sufficient explanations, such as intelligent design. It’s clear after reading the work behind Dr. Sanford, Behe, Dembski, Meyers et al. that the logical and evidential merits of the theory are not only lacking, but seemingly point to an entirely different conclusion altogether.

    The scientific arguments against ToE have already been well established already on this blog, so the next logical step is to deprogram society from the philosophical mess it has left behind. Posts such as this one do a good job prying at just that.

    He who only uses lies and deceit should not throw the first stone! For me, growing up in a fundamentalist home, the thing that drove me away from ‘the faith’ the fastest was all the lies on the internet the ‘faithful’ would not hesitate to use. Despicable, especially since they have ‘the truth’, why would you need to lie about it!

    Some examples please? You must have a really good reason to discard an entire world view based on experiences growing up. I have close friends who have the same type of story, but normally revolve around unfortunate misconceptions that are sometimes circulated within church families. However you have to keep in mind that both sides of the dichotomy circulate such misconceptions, therefore you have to analyze each idea of its own independent quality instead of wholly discarding something or wholly accepting something for that matter.

    And what I said above stands, Expelled is the most deceiptful film in every regard. If you believe uncritically everything that fits what you want to be true, you’ll never know whats true! Watch it with an open mind, and go research what sounds too ‘good’ to be true.

    Expelled was a very enlightening film that exposes the animosity drawn towards dissenters of the dogmatic “scientific” collective. Check out Richard Sternberg’s site, you’ll find all of the legal documentation you need to come to a lean, clear conclusion based on the facts and cut away from all of the fatty deception that was involved in his mistreatment.

  11. “But I reminded myself that it would be awfully difficult for the producers to manipulate my interview for their film. You see, I have nothing to hide. The only way my words could be twisted would be with highly selective editing. What if they interviewed me for two hours, and picked out a 3 second sound bite out of context? Well then I would have a right to complain.

    Nothing like this happened to the otherwise furious evolutionists. ”

    It sounds like Dr. Hunter’s own interview was fairly represented. But given the point-of-view of the documentary makers that is to be expected. Besides, the whole point of ‘clever editing’ is that it is, well, clever. Unless Dr. Hunter actually saw the original raw footage used, he really does not have any basis to say “nothing like this happened”. Or was he present when the film was edited?

    I’ve been reading Dr. Hunter’s pieces for a while now. Along with others here (like Ms O’Leary) he seems quite belligerent towards evolution. But is there any aspect of evolution (e.g., common descent) that he does accept? Or did Darwin get absolutey everything wrong? I ask because it’s easy to get the impression from these pages that IDers do not accept any aspect of evolution (and perhaps this is why IDers are sometimes rightly or wrongly called creationists) – whereas many in fact do (for example, I believe Behe does accept common descent).

  12. tribune7,

    I have acknowledged his credentials before, and you are right, they are legit. You may notice that ‘Dr.’ is neither his full name, his full title, or anything specific to Cornelius Hunter, so I may be making under-handed suggestions about his credentials, but I am in no way claiming he does not deserve the title. I have said before that asking other posters on here to ‘do some science’ is not a reasonable request, as it would not be a reasonable request to make of myself, but the ‘Dr.’ is that most appropriate person in this instance to make that request too, but all I ever see him doing is anti-science, bashing the ToE and leaving a massive gaping hole where he could make some constructive suggestions or even a tentative opinion of how he thinks it could be done better. But I’ve seen nothing thus far, absolutely nothing of scientific merit from anything the ‘Dr.’ has written. He has credentials, but using them to spread propaganda (what else can it be called if he actively adds nothing constructive to the debate)

    love you all.

  13. Joseph,

    Is ignorance a good way to further mankind’s understanding?

    Those in the scientific community that find ‘ignorance’ and expose it for what it is, and shine the light on a previously unlit path that will need to more vaults of human understanding, are actively honored in the scientific world. Claiming it is all ‘ignorance’ is ignorance on your part, not that of science.

    The thing is, as I see it, if evolution is wrong in any way, then the person that gives rock solid evidence of that fact that cannot be disputed will be as famous or more-so than darwin himself. The fact that the ‘Dr.’ is relatively unknown shows that has not found that convincing evidence yet. Science loves truth, ID loves the Designer!

  14. PaulN,

    The scientific arguments against ToE have already been well established already on this blog, so the next logical step is to deprogram society from the philosophical mess it has left behind. Posts such as this one do a good job prying at just that.

    I think you are mistaken, but the above shows the EXACT issue i have. ‘Well established on this blog’ does not mean scientifically credible. The next step is to DO SOME SCIENCE, and stop making propaganda to ‘deprogram society’ and first do the science to convince those that are not ‘ignorant of the intricacies’ of the topic. My point, as your post confirms, is that most arguments against the ToE are made to the public, instead of the scientists that actually do the hard work of finding this stuff out.

    As I see it, every bit of the literature of the ID movement has been thoroughly desputed, so propanganda is all that is left. Thank for demonstrating how effective that propanganda is!

    Love you!

  15. JTaylor,

    Or did Darwin get absolutey everything wrong?

    I don’t think anyone here would assert that he got everything wrong. Artificially replicating natural selection on an experimental basis has shown results that selection works.

    Random errors, copies, and naturally occurring manipulations in the genome however, are devoid of such experimental qualifications, and in most cases have shown that they do indeed add up for an overall detrimental effect to populations.

    Darwin made some accurate observations on the adaptation of the finch beak in the Galapagos, however we’ve come to realize that this is nothing more than cyclic variations within kind that produces nothing new or novel within the genome of said finches. This shows nothing more than natural selection working on simple Mendelian genetics. In this case he made good observations but came to an invalid conclusion.

    It’s in fact very rare for gene duplications, or errors in the genome to produce anything of functional value that doesn’t already exist, as real-world trials such as the fruit fly experiment and the Lenski’s E.coli experiment have thoroughly displayed. Polyploidy often severely hinders the survivability in plants, and kills humans. Aneuploidy causes down syndrome in humans. The total net result in the majority of our real-world attempts to emulate Darwinian evolution have come far short of what we observe in the fossil record and naturally occurring organisms. In fact, if nothing else they’ve displayed that the fossil record would be full of deformed body plans and abstract strucures that would drown out the evidence of the majority of optimally successful structures that we see in reality.

  16. PaulN,

    However you have to keep in mind that both sides of the dichotomy circulate such misconceptions

    I’ve heard about the mistakes science has made, and has corrected. But as an example, what about the ID proponents that use those mistakes to further their own agenda? While science loves to correct itself, ID Proponents love using that aspect of science to dissuade people from science.

    Some background to these statements : Gill slits on embryos, proof of evolution? yes, agreed, it was written in the text books, as that was the excepted science at the time, but science constantly amends itself (I’m treading on thin ice here, and those too easily convinced probably thought I’ve fallen through already..). By ‘constantly amends’ itself, think of the old analogy of standing on the shoulders of giants, well when you up there you sometimes see how the landscape is different to how you thought it was, but you wouldn’t see that unless you had got to that point already.

    The very fact that I feel i need to do all this explaining is because ID/Creationist literature LOVES to tell people about the mistakes science has made, and they lap it up like it’s milk and they are hungry kittens, but any sensible person with a understanding of science knows how deceitful that picture being painted actually is!

    I hope that explains my point of view, and I hope I haven’t just thrown in a whole bunch more talking points as I’m running out of time to type much more this afternoon. lol

    Love you!

  17. Noel said : Gill slits on embryos, proof of evolution? yes

    Just reread my post and thought I’d do some quote-mining, another favourite of creationists, and if you dont know what I’m talking about, then google is your friend! I’ve not heard a good excuse for quote-mining, again, surely only propaganda!

    Love you! :)

  18. 18

    The point of the gill slits in embryos and Haeckel’s drawings and peppered moths (soon add archeopteryx) is not that science was wrong. It’s that those handy tools for illustrating evolution remained in school textbooks often for decades after science supposedly moved on.
    This reinforces the notion that believing the theory comes first while the accuracy of the evidence is secondary.
    It also raises the question of why, given the ‘mountain of evidence’ for the various evolutionary theories, discarded evidence was still needed.

  19. 19

    “soon add archeopteryx.”

    Do I hear an ID prediction?

  20. Nnoel,

    ‘Well established on this blog’ does not mean scientifically credible.

    If by “scientifically credible” you mean established in the scientific community then of course not! You can thank social engineering and the philosophical Darwinian programming in question for that. The structure and nature of the scientific community today does not allow for dissent, regardless of how genuine such dissenting theories are. ID is written off on preconceived notions and presuppositional (and often consequently circular) evolutionary arguments, not real science. The problem here is what the definiton of science has become- a new form of methodology completely limited to naturalistic conclusions that are ultimately and conspicuously insufficient for exploring mindful causation. The dismissals against ID are completely philosophically based because of this, regardless of how much evidence is presented that debunks the theory of evolution. Your assertion that there’s no science involved is not due to any truth to the claim, but rather due to the loaded definition of science that you follow.

    As I see it, every bit of the literature of the ID movement has been thoroughly desputed, so propanganda is all that is left.

    This is completely false, I could give you a multitude of articles explaining the implausibilities of Darwinian theory. And following that, disputing something is in no way shape or form the equivalent to refuting it, which is why you personally have to take the time to examine the logical merits of each individual claim in a proposal instead of automatically siding with the disputors by default. This autonomic bias that you exude is the very philosophical programming I’m talking about. Notice how most of the ID heavyweights were once evolutionists themselves, and it was an enlightenment towards the real facts of evolution (The same facts and logic that you don’t get in the school programming process) that changed their position. They certainly aren’t ignorant, and for you to assert such a thing just shows how little you’ve actually followed their research.

    Just try this one article for me, and tell me what lies and deceptions are being spread.

    New developments in discovering functional DNA in the genome

    Would you be kind enough to support your assertions by explaining to me what facts they’re purposely lying about in order to propagate ignorance. Show me how these observations that disprove the concept of “junk” DNA are holding back science.

  21. Nnoel –but all I ever see him doing is anti-science, bashing the ToE

    How is pointing out flaws in a paradigm anti-science?

    so I may be making under-handed suggestions about his credentials,

    And it’s also immature

    as that was the excepted science at the time,

    That describes NDE today as well :-)

  22. 22

    David Kellogg:
    No, just a hunch that twenty years after paleontologists have decided that birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs, the pictures will still be in schoolbooks because the image of a bird-looking creature with teeth gets the point across.
    Nothing scientific about it. Maybe I’m wrong.

  23. 23

    “No, just a hunch that twenty years after paleontologists have decided that birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs.”

    Maybe. Maybe not. Out of curiosity, where do you think birds came from?

  24. JTaylor,

    But is there any aspect of evolution (e.g., common descent) that he does accept? Or did Darwin get absolutey everything wrong?

    But is Cornelius obligated in any way to answer these questions? After doing a little googling, I would conjecture that perhaps these matters are not Cornelius’ specialty. Rather, he has presented a powerful critique in which he has shown evolution to be pathetic, deceitful, and religiously motivated. There are plenty of ID theoreticians working to determine what, if anything, can be salvaged from Darwin’s theory.

  25. As I see it, every bit of the literature of the ID movement has been thoroughly desputed,

    I’m assuming you mean disputed, and, well yes. It is very much debated. But disputed does not mean refuted and nobody has come close to doing that with regard to ID.

  26. Nnoel,

    I was referring to the theory of evolution,

    Ya see no one even knows if the transformations required are even possible.

    That is ignorance.

    No one knows if prokaryotes can “evolve” into anything other than prokaryotes.

    Ignorance.

    IOW Nnoel you are right, Do some science and stop spreading dogma.

  27. DK:

    Out of curiosity, where do you think birds came from?

    All observations and experiments say that birds come from birds.

    So if we stick to science…

  28. 28

    David Kellogg:
    If you mean the specific mechanisms by which I believe birds were added to this world, I don’t know.

  29. All observations and experiments say that birds come from birds. So if we stick to science…

    Good answer, Joseph

  30. From the PDF you posted :

    “Such a magnificent
    solution to such a monster logistics problem could surely
    only come from a Master Designer”

    “There is thus no possible random (mutation) solution to
    this conundrum.”

    Throw your hands in the air and give up already you silly biologists, you cant solve THAT problem, go home and enjoy your time with you family instead.

    “The discovery that virtually all our DNA is functional
    right now demolishes the neo-Darwinian argument that it
    contains mostly junk which constitutes a unique fossilized
    history of our genetic evolution.”

    This is a straw man, its these ‘neo-Darwinists’ that are making these discoveries, again, as I said, that is propaganda, pure and simple!

    “The discovery that natural selection has been an
    insignificant factor in our genetic history demolishes
    Darwin’s theory that all life on Earth arose from a common
    ancestor by means of the natural selection of natural
    variation.”

    That is THEIR conclusion, but not one that a reasonable person would conclude.

    The entire paper is not science, it is ANTI-science as I’ve said! There is nothing constructive, yet SO MANY words! All this shows me how much effort is being put into NOT COMING UP WITH A SINGLE useful bit of science.

    I’d love to live long enough to know how all this will pans out, but with ID doing nothing but preaching to the converted about the problems in science, and real scientists hard at work at the self same problems, I’d love to see what conclusion is eventually reached!

    Remember ‘Man will not fly for a thousand years!’ – Wilbur Wright, 1901, and oh yeah, my favourite, ‘Everything that can be invented has been invented.’ – Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

    All the PDF does is say ‘God Dun It!’, and if god did it, I ask, why do science?

    Love you All!

  31. Nnoel:

    All the PDF does is say ‘God Dun It!’, and if god did it, I ask, why do science?

    Well just as Newton did, to understand what “God” did.

    Do archaeologists stop their investigation once they determine they have found an artifact? No.

    Do forensic scientists stop once they determine criminal activity? No.

    Would SETI researchers pack it in once they found a truly alien signal? No.

    I guess the ignorance is a trickle-down effect.

  32. 32

    Birds were “added to the world” as birds? That’s sticking to science all right.

  33. 33

    David Kellogg:

    Birds were “added to the world” as birds? That’s sticking to science all right.

    So in your opinion there have always been birds? Where’s that research paper?

  34. 34

    No, I think birds evolved from earlier creatures — probably dinosaurs but maybe not. Certainly I don’t think a designer plunked them fully birded into the world during the Jurassic.

  35. Nnoel,

    Since you can’t come to grips with this, I’ll spell it out for you. Yes these Darwinists are the ones making the the discoveries, but the fact is that these discoveries work AGAINST their position. It further invalidates their own position, so simply maintaining a specific position when you make a discovery does not mean that said position is being objectively supported by the evidence in question. It does not in any way immunize your position from the objective facts pertaining to it. In retrospect, Darwinists also first conceptualized “junk” DNA which is a presupposition that has held back science for years. If naturalism wasn’t inherently philosophically limited, these types of corrections wouldn’t need to occur at the rate they do!

  36. 36

    DK:
    It astounds me that I lower my guard and phrase a sentence to deliberately admit what I don’t claim to know, and you respond with a cheap shot.
    Frankly I prefer to keep my debating on a higher level and not resort to dishonorable tactics.

  37. 37

    ScottAndrews, my apologies if I sounded obnoxious. I’ve been made especially testy today by others (not you).

    I’m just curious what the ID folks think happened with birds. Pro-evolution folks constantly have to answer questions on evolution here but ID folks here get to keep their views pretty close to the vest. Is there an ID theory of birds? They emerged at a certain point in history, during the Jurassic. How? Was there a design intervention at that point? Did it modify existing organisms (as in directed evolution) or create birds de novo? Does anybody have a scientific theory of birds that is not evolutionary?

  38. Also Nnoel,

    Throw your hands in the air and give up already you silly biologists, you cant solve THAT problem, go home and enjoy your time with you family instead.

    Why would you consider inferring the best available explanation “giving up” on an inquiry? If you finally discovered how your laptop was designed, would that be considered “giving up” since an elaborately drawn out narrative involving wind and erosion wouldn’t cut it?

    That is THEIR conclusion, but not one that a reasonable person would conclude.

    Right, reasonable people wouldn’t consider complex specified functional code to come from a sentient programmer either would they?

    The entire paper is not science, it is ANTI-science as I’ve said! There is nothing constructive, yet SO MANY words! All this shows me how much effort is being put into NOT COMING UP WITH A SINGLE useful bit of science.

    Again, empty assertions. You fail to address any of the real issues being presented in the paper, making your wordiness completely transparent.

    All the PDF does is say ‘God Dun It!’, and if god did it, I ask, why do science?

    To figure out the HOW “God dun it.” Also our own mental faculties are well and capable and sufficient for producing real-world creations that bear a striking resemblance to the mindful yet exponentially more complex articulations of a grand designer, just something to think about. If we could figure out the actual language of DNA and how it’s read and written in all contexts, then essentially we could find out the “how” and possibly replicate a similar process.

  39. PaulN

    I understand your position, in the same manner as you think you understand mine. My understanding of your position is that no matter what they find, they’ll ‘twist’ it in their own heads to fit their world view, but I’d have to say that is true of both your opinions and mine, but I’m standing by the people trying to make new advancements, understand the problems and work through them, rather than the people claiming ‘God dun it, and we’ll never understand’. (please see my extract from the PDF above)

    My problem is that most people hear me say something like that (‘i’m standing with science’), and the assumptions made are incorrect. Why cant I stand by science and know that Truth will be revealed? When all I see ‘the other side’ doing is science bashing, why even bother.

    When I meet people that laugh and joke about the failings of others, and never make any contructive suggestions, I call them physic vampires, and ID [at the moment] appears to be nothing more than ‘knowledge vampires’, living off others hard work and contributing nothing to ‘the pile’ themselves.

    After everything I’ve said about ID ‘not doing science’, that is the only issue I have. It frustrates me more than anything else. I come onto this board and at times I feel like every other poster is array against me, thinking ‘he’s just another Darwinist’, but I’m not. I feel like the court jester [a role i do enjoy], laughing at everyone cause they not doing it right, but most ID Proponents on this board are so staunch in their objections to ToE that they can’t see the ally that I am (he is attacking what I believe, he must be ‘with them’). All I’m doing is constructive criticism, I hope I’m valued for that :)

    Love you all!

    P.S. For my own opinions, I think ‘guided evolution’ by ‘a greater whole’ makes the most sense to me.

  40. For my own opinions, I think ‘guided evolution’ by ‘a greater whole’ makes the most sense to me.

    How is that different than ID?

  41. I’m just curious what the ID folks think happened with birds.

    David, Some ID folk thing there have always been birds. Some ID folk think birds evolved from simpler life.

    Pro-evolution folks constantly have to answer questions on evolution here

    Speaking for myself, I think no answer is better than a wrong answer, and an honest tentative answer is better than faking certainty.

  42. tribune7 @ 20 :

    How is pointing out flaws in a paradigm anti-science?

    The problem is, most of the flaws in the scientific knowledge is already known, and acknowledged by the scientific community, but when the ID spin doctors hear about them, they repackage the information and spew forth the propaganda!

    If you are referring to the ‘religious undertones’ of the ‘paradigm’ and the like that the ‘Dr.’ loves writing about, well it IS a novel angle, but again, he is only bashing, no recommendations of his own, especially significant I think when the ‘religious undertones’ he talks about are far from un-refuted, and in most cases ‘common sense’ appears to be the best label for the ‘religion’.

    But most ID material (a good e.g. is the PDF PaulN provided), best fits the ‘knowledge vampire’ category, as they use the ‘actively researched’ areas of science to promote discord amongst the ‘ignorant of the intricacies’ public, which I think hurts ID, but hurts science more!

    Love you all!

  43. tribune7

    For my own opinions, I think ‘guided evolution’ by ‘a greater whole’ makes the most sense to me.

    How is that different than ID?

    My point excatly!!! But, I dont support* ID because of the LACK OF ANYTHING SCIENCE, and I love science, and all those ‘neo-darwinist’ (arggh! ID spin doctors did well coining that term) are all honest hard working people doing their best to advance our knowledge, unlike the knowledge vampires I mentioned earlier!

    *by ‘dont support’ i mean it offers nothing, it only lies and deceives people, but other than that, I’m not counting any chickens, I’m watching, waiting, and happy to do some constructive criticism! :)

    Love you all.

  44. Re #32

    ScottAndrews

    I am having almost the identical discussion with WIlliam Murray on another thread. He came up with the remarkable position that he didn’t know:

    1) If all birds had parents
    2) If there was a time that there were no birds

    Do you share his opinion?

  45. Nnoel– The problem is, most of the flaws in the scientific knowledge is already known, and acknowledged by the scientific community,

    Does the establishment acknowledge flaws in the theory? As was noted earlier Haeckel’s drawings were in text-books for decades after they were shown to be inaccurate. It was only after evo-skeptics began pointing this out did the matter start to be addressed.

    And consider this:

    There is a flawed paradigm — NDE.

    A new one is proposed — ID.

    How are defenders of the status quo practicing good science when they resort to non-scientific methods — economic sanctions, social ostracism, professional isolation etc — to defend their flawed model?

  46. all those ‘neo-darwinist’ (arggh! ID spin doctors did well coining that term) are all honest hard working people

    All? And Michael Behe and William Dembski are not?

    How is not seeking to find the limits of NDE not work? How is attempting to quantify the traits of designed objects not work?

  47. 47

    There is a flawed paradigm — NDE.
    A new one is proposed — ID

    How is ID a paradigm? Nobody in ID will say how things happened or even when. When pressed (as on birds) they will say (as you did earlier) there’s no ID view.

    Is there an ID position on anything beyond “evolution doesn’t work, therefore design”? For example, can somebody give me 20 moments in the history of life where there’s a design intervention?

  48. 48

    DK:
    Yes, I’ve followed the other thread. I’ll take a neutral position on the specifics, but I’ve experienced for myself how sometimes it can get me a little worked up.

  49. 49

    David Kellogg @36:
    There are no ID answers to your questions regarding birds.
    Compare it to a computer disk containing To Kill a Mockingbird, and pretend you’ve never heard of the book. Where did it come from? Did one person write it or many? When? Has it ever been edited or changed? Was it originally handwritten, typed, or dictated, or was it written in another language and then translated?
    ID doesn’t answer any of that. ID says that some intelligent agency was responsible for its existence.
    Would it really be a strength for it to guess at what it doesn’t know?

  50. As a nonpartisan observer who’s spent over a year browsing this debate online, I’ve found I.D. and it’s proponents to be the more honest, respectful, and knowledgeable participants. Compare the behavior of this blog’s regular commentators to the classless, foul-mouthed ramblings of the regular commentators over at Pharyngula and the like. In my unbiased view, the average Darwinist comes across as being alarmingly dishonest, pathetically insecure, and far more interested in propagating his/her world-view than discovering the actual truth. I don’t want to upset anyone here, but I would go as far as to say that the average Darwinist gives off the impression of being afraid, possibly even terrified of Intelligent Design. While they would say it’s because they’re looking out for the prestige of science, the truth is they fear that I.D. is the beginning of the end for their archaic world-view masquerading as science.

    It is.

  51. 51

    Mark Frank @43:
    It looks to me like you’re having some fun with what WM actually said.
    Perhaps I’ve been on the wrong side of this anyway. Reasonable people without bias should be willing to accept a scientific explanation.
    Please scientifically explain how birds came to be in the world.

  52. ShawnBoy,

    I don’t want to upset anyone here, but I would go as far as to say that the average Darwinist gives off the impression of being afraid, possibly even terrified of Intelligent Design.

    I agree completely. You see a lot of bluster, but I think we can almost smell the fear in these evos as their cherished paradigm collapses. (warning: Don’t click on the link unless you have 5 minutes of your life to waste on PZ’s juvenile a**hattery).

  53. #50

    Please scientifically explain how birds came to be in the world.

    It is a matter of how much detail you want. I am not a biologist. I believe that they gradually evolved from a branch of reptiles through mutation and natural selection. I am not qualified to give any more detail.

    Can you explain scientifically how they came into the world?

    And can you answer two very simple questions. Do you believe

    1) All birds have at least one parent?

    2) There was a time when there were no birds?

    Thanks

  54. 54

    Hi ScottAndrews,

    The problem with your analogy is that we don’t just find a computer disk containing the text of To Kill a Mockingbird. Rather, we have thousands of computer disks containing slightly varying versions of the text which they receive by natural replication; and we have a fossil record of disks containing some features of the text going back many generations of naturally-reproducing disks.

    ID doesn’t answer any of that. ID says that some intelligent agency was responsible for its existence.

    Then ID is a mighty thin science.
    A better example would be language. Do we know that languages didn’t arise as a consequence of intelligent intervention? No. But languages as systems do evolve. They diversify through geographical separation and selective pressure (as French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian diversified from Latin). We have “fossil” records of the languages (in written texts), “genetic” differences (as in the Great Vowel shift), and we even postulate likely ancestors (as in proto-Indo-European). They even exhibit symbiosis, as when the Norman Conquest created Middle and later Modern English out of the collision between Old French and Anglo-Saxon.

    In short, we have lots of convergent evidence of relatedness and ancestry from a range of sources. And although occasionally people do try to direct the evolution of languages, designed langauges are either failures (such as Esperanto and Basic English) or are superceded by the natural evolution beyond the rules (as in American Sign Language).

  55. 55

    Mark Frank @52:
    My explanation of how birds came into the world is poof! – someone made them. Not very scientific, is it? Let’s get back to yours.
    I don’t need a great deal of detail. The specifics you offered were that they descended from reptiles and that changes were made through mutation and natural selection.
    Has epigenetic inheritance been ruled out, or are were sure on RM+NS? Or was it a combination of the two? Or were there other mechanisms?
    Which branch of reptiles? What selective pressure caused the limb changes that eventually resulted in wings? What was the advantage of the pre-wing limbs? I could go on, but I’ll stop there.
    Except for one more question which applies to all the above: How do we know? Anyone can guess.
    Science doesn’t just tell stories like poof! someone made it. The answers to these questions are central to explaining evolution. Perhaps someone will care to demonstrate how evolutionary theory provides specific answers in contrast to ID’s lack of explanation.

  56. 56

    David Kellogg:

    Then ID is a mighty thin science.

    Then you’ll be more than happy to take up the challenge I issued at 54. My challenge is that you have no specific explanations for bird evolution.

  57. 57

    ScottAndrews, any answers I provide will be similar to those for language evolution: sure you can’t prove that French didn’t emerge from Latin because it was designed to, but all the evidence is that (a) French really did emerge from Latin, and (b) it happened naturally. For birds as well, the evidence is from all sorts of directions: fossil, anatomical, genetic, and geographical evidence all suggest that birds are related to each other and to pre-avian reptiles. Drawing this conclusion is more than a “guess”; it’s the best inference we have. Heck, those data are even supported by the architecture of the brain: that is, the relative size of different brain parts in birds modern and ancient. See Burish, M. J., Kueh, H. Y., and Wang, S. S. H. (2004), ‘Brain architecture and social complexity in modern and ancient birds’, Brain Behavior And Evolution, 63 (2), 107-24.

  58. 58

    ScottAndrews, if you need all your questions answered definitively before accepting bird evolution, then you’re likely to create more questions along the way. For the anti-evolutionist, every transitional form just produces two new gaps.

  59. I, personally, have not seen a SHRED of dishonesty among those that propagate pro-evolution ideas, while I cannot find a single honest proponent of ID.

    I am not commenting on the ‘supporters’ (the people that post on the internet) opinions and behaviours, but on the people that actually stand up and put themselves in the spot light. I don’t expect any standards from ‘walk-ins’ [what I'd call myself].

    So you can understand my consternation that ‘ID appears more honest than Evo’. Just my two cents.

    tribune7 :

    All? And Michael Behe and William Dembski are not? [referring to honest hard working scientists]

    I’m sorry but Micheal Behe writes what the religious right want to hear, and never responds with any substance to his critics, to me, that is dishonest [intellectual dishonesty is still dishonest]. Maybe I’m showing what standards I like to judge people in the spotlight, but I’ve seen P.Z. Myers respond openly to critics, while is critics wont link to his site or even mention his name fearing to appear in the same page on a search engine so people can read both sides of the story.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....s_skin.php

    http://blogs.answersingenesis......-research/

    And by the way, both posts are a good read, but you wont enjoy it if your pro-ID.

    ShawnBoy,

    you and me are just not going to get along. Afraid and terrified is not at all how I’d describe what I’ve seen, I’ve only seen open contempt, and usually because someone is asking ‘so how does a cat give birth to a dog’. If thats scared anyone you’ve seen, then I pity that person.

    Love you! (even you ShawnBoy)

  60. 60

    David Kellogg:
    No, I have no intention of grilling you on the speculative lineage of birds. Most likely your explanation will be several generations of obsolete before you can post it.
    How did these changes occur? Surely there must be more to evolution than, ‘we can tell that they evolved.’
    No speculation or guessing. You don’t want to be ‘thin on science’ like ID. How did it happen?

  61. Anyway, thats me on this topic for this day, I’m done. I have NO IDEA how two people (me and ) can have such differing opinions, but we do.

    We both think the other side are dishonest. We both think the other side should let science do it’s thing (stop censoring me!!) (stop butting in with your religious mumbo jumbo!)

    It’s a pity we cant just both agree that ID needs to do more than propaganda and DO SOME SCIENCE! lol

    :)

    Love you all.

  62. oh ffs!

    ScottAndrews @ 59 :

    No speculation or guessing. You don’t want to be ‘thin on science’ like ID. How did it happen?

    what do you want? A 3d animation of molecules making mistakes in the coping process? A narrative of how those changes were selected by natural selection? Oh wait, the PDF posted today showed NS to be mostly insignificant…

    good thing someone is DOING SOME SCIENCE!

    hehe,

    night night.

  63. 63

    No, I have no intention of grilling you on the speculative lineage of birds. Most likely your explanation will be several generations of obsolete before you can post it. How did these changes occur? Surely there must be more to evolution than, ‘we can tell that they evolved.’
    No speculation or guessing. You don’t want to be ‘thin on science’ like ID. How did it happen?

    You seem to want a total mechanism for bird evolution and, absent that, will snipe that it’s just a guess. Sorry. Not playing. Do you have any explanation for the converging evidence of anatomy, genetics, fossil history, and geography that birds evolved? Do you have any evidence that counters this beyond bad analogies to found CDs?

  64. #54

    My explanation of how birds came into the world is poof! – someone made them. Not very scientific, is it?

    Agreed.

    Let’s get back to yours.
    I don’t need a great deal of detail. The specifics you offered were that they descended from reptiles and that changes were made through mutation and natural selection.
    Has epigenetic inheritance been ruled out, or are were sure on RM+NS? Or was it a combination of the two? Or were there other mechanisms?
    Which branch of reptiles? What selective pressure caused the limb changes that eventually resulted in wings? What was the advantage of the pre-wing limbs? I could go on, but I’ll stop there.
    Except for one more question which applies to all the above: How do we know? Anyone can guess.

    As I said I am not a biologist so I am not in a position to answer most of these questions. But I can make a few points:
    * Any account of what happened millions of years ago is going to be short on detail.
    * There are going to be some aspects of which we are fairly certain and others which are debatable.
    * The evidence has to come from what we can observe now
    *”Evolved from a reptile using currently observed mechanisms” is a significant improvement over “poof”
    * The hypothesis is falsifiable

  65. 65

    Nnoel:
    No, I’ll settle for an explanation of the mechanism or mechanisms that caused such changes. How did they operate? What factors influenced them.
    In the case of birds, just one tiny example, there are a number of details including the lungs, heart, feathers, and of course the wings, which vary greatly from reptiles. They aren’t differences that lend themselves to small steps.
    ID is “thin on science” for failing to explain the specifics of how birds came to be. (Even though such explanations have nothing to do with ID. Entemology doesn’t explain birds – is it thin on science?) So I’d like to see what “real” science has to offer by comparison.

  66. 66

    Mark Frank:

    ”Evolved from a reptile using currently observed mechanisms” is a significant improvement over “poof”

    Good, so you do have some specifics. By which currently observed mechanisms did they evolve? The specifics are important – they are only way I know you’re not making it up. Sort of like when someone’s alibi is that they were watching TV – you ask them which show and what it was about.

  67. 67

    Even though such explanations have nothing to do with ID. Entemology [sic] doesn’t explain birds – is it thin on science?

    Do you mean “entomology”? The problem is that ID doesn’t just not explain birds — it doesn’t explain anything.
    You’re just playing a game where you are asking for the science and then saying “not enough.”

  68. ok, last one for tonight! Promise!

    ScottAndrews @ 64 : OK, it’s an honest question, but you must understand how difficult your question would be if we had LIVE specimens on all the transitional creatures between X and Y, but working backward from fossils and *cough*speculation*cough* is not easy.

    This is the same response to Dr. Hunter, what you are asking for is not easy, but what you propose instead is not science.

    Lol, does that sound fair?

    P.S. the speculation I hate to admit above is very EDUCATED speculation, but the ID movement makes scientists afraid to use ‘bad’ words like that for fear of being unfairly criticised, but what is the alternative? I shall read your response eagerly in the morning, and any response that doesn’t support the scientific endeavour shall be frowned upon! lol

    P.P.S. please dont quote mine me, I dont want to appear on the front of answersingenesis with the headline “EVO Admits it’s all Guess work!”, cause i dont speak for nobody but me!

    Love you all!

  69. David Kellogg @ 66

    You go dude, right on! Well Played sir and all that Jazz, ID does nothing to advance science.

    But if I’m wrong, please respond to my post in 67. :)

  70. #65

    ScottAndrews

    I will continue this game. I should like to point out that you threw in the towel as far as ID was concerned from the kick off.

    By which currently observed mechanisms did they evolve?

    Inherited variation – we see that all the time.

    Selection – we see that at the microlevel all the time and we use it when we breed animals for our own purposes

    Speciation – that takes a long time and very few complete cases have been observed – but we see plenty of examples where it is in process – ring species are a good example

    The specifics are important – they are only way I know you’re not making it up. Sort of like when someone’s alibi is that they were watching TV – you ask them which show and what it was about.

  71. Sorry – accidentally left one of your paragraphs at the end of the previous comment

  72. 72

    David Kellogg @66:
    It didn’t take very many answers before you decided to call it quits.
    If you don’t think ID explains anything, then you don’t understand what it is or what it is meant to explain.
    In the meantime, the so-called explanations provided by evolutionary biology are nonsense that doesn’t explain anything at all.
    We’re certain that between reptiles and birds there was some mutation and some selection or some epigenetic inheritance or maybe something else we haven’t heard of yet, and whichever factors they were, and somehow over a few million years the arms grew into wings and the scales turned into feathers, the heart and lungs adapted for what was about to happen, and poof! there were birds.
    You’re long on what happened and short on the how and why. Science improves and changes, but that’s not the same as one wild guess after another, which is all you have to offer.
    You point the finger at ID, which makes a simple inference and backs it up, and then try to pass off a bunch of guesses and stories as science.

  73. 73

    Mark Frank:
    I didn’t throw in the towel on ID. ID has nothing to do with mechanisms, for reasons that you’ve read countless times but don’t seem to reach you. Thermometers don’t tell you why it’s hot. Fingerprints don’t tell you why a person touched something. ID is not about how something was made. Read that several times.

    Inherited variation – that’s just another way of saying something changed and passed it on. You’re just saying the same thing in different words. What variation? How? Why? All you’re saying is that things changed because they changed. Poof!

  74. 74

    ID has nothing to do with mechanisms, for reasons that you’ve read countless times but don’t seem to reach you.

    What does it have to do with again? Identifying the “poof” moments? What contribution to understanding is ID supposed to make? Does it make any positive arguments? Your arguments are all about what you say evolution can’t do.

  75. 75

    ScottAndrews:

    You point the finger at ID, which makes a simple simplistic inference and backs it up produces books and blogs, and then try to pass off a bunch of guesses and stories peer-reviewed experimental and observational reports as science.

    Fixed that for you.

  76. 76

    David Kellogg:

    Fixed that for you. Oh, no! I just realized that I don’t have any idea what caused reptiles to evolve into birds or how it happened. I’ll just parrot old attacks on ID and maybe no one will notice that I can’t explain bird evolution in any detail and I’ve been throwing rocks from my glass house.

    Thanks.

  77. 77

    ScottAndrews

    I can’t explain bird evolution in any detail

    Some detail is better then no detail, which is all you/ID has to offer.

    No?

    Prove me wrong. Tell me the Intelligent Design theory of bird evolution.

  78. David –Nobody in ID will say how things happened or even when.

    And how is that different from neo-Darwinism?

    When did whatever was the ancestor of birds become birds?

    How did it happen, specifically?

    How were the bird genes added to the ancestor? Mutations? What mutations and in what order and with what frequency? HGT? How did the genes to be transferred come into existence?

    What was the ancestor of birds anyway?

    And is or is not OOL part of NDE?

  79. 79

    Echidna-Levy:
    Some detail can be better than none. It depends on whether that detail is fabricated or guessed.

    Tell me the Intelligent Design theory of bird evolution.

    What an ignorant statement. Tell me the gravitational theory of vitamin C deficiency.

  80. Mr Tribune7,

    David –Nobody in ID will say how things happened or even when.

    And how is that different from neo-Darwinism?

    Population genetics?

  81. David Kellogg:

    Nobody in ID will say how things happened or even when.

    Are you running for the “poster child of ID ignorance”?

    How do you propose IDists do that- determine the precise method and time?

    Could it be as I have been saying for years-

    In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination(s) about the who, how, when, where is by studying the design in question.

    As Wm Dembski stated in NFL- ID does not avoid those questions, it just makes them a separate issue- and for very good reasons.

  82. To all anti-IDists:

    ID is based on observations and experience.

    ID can be tested.

    Your position, OTOH, is based on the refusal to accept the design inference.

    There now it is easier to see which is scientific and which is based on personal worldviews.

  83. David Kellogg:

    What contribution to understanding is ID supposed to make?

    Information.

    As in living organisms are not reucible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    IOW ID allows us to view living organisms as they really are- information processing systems.

    Information that is not reducible nor explainable by matter, energy, chance and necessity.

  84. 84

    Joseph

    In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination(s) about the who, how, when, where is by studying the design in question.

    And what conclusions have you come to?

    There now it is easier to see which is scientific and which is based on personal worldviews.

    Indeed, for once we can agree on something. It’s nice of you to come out and say it however.

  85. David Kellogg:

    For birds as well, the evidence is from all sorts of directions: fossil, anatomical, genetic, and geographical evidence all suggest that birds are related to each other and to pre-avian reptiles.

    Yes, via common design.

    There isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates non-birds can “evolve” into birds via any mechanism.

    Once sexual reproduction was introduced, with 1/2 of each mates’ genomes being tossed out, the chance of accumulating mutations took a severe hit.

    Now the anatomical data says birds did not evolve from dinos nor reptiles.

    What mutations fixed the femur?

    And the fossils don’t help either…

  86. 86

    Joseph

    Information that is not reducible nor explainable by matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    But if we postulate an “intelligent designer” that a few comments ago you said we know nothing about due to an “absence of direct observation or designer input” that fixes everything?

    Yes, “a designer” explains “Information”.

    So does a hublepmorkaet. Yet neither get us anywhere.

  87. In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination(s) about the who, how, when, where is by studying the design in question.

    Echidna-Levy:

    And what conclusions have you come to?

    That you and your ilk are dishonest and couldn’t substantiate their claims if their lives depended on it.

    To all anti-IDists:

    ID is based on observations and experience.

    ID can be tested.

    Your position, OTOH, is based on the refusal to accept the design inference.

    There now it is easier to see which is scientific and which is based on personal worldviews.

    Indeed, for once we can agree on something. It’s nice of you to come out and say it however.

    I’ve been saying that for years.

    Now don’t you feel better admitting your position is based on a personal worldview?

  88. Nakashima-san

    And how is that different from neo-Darwinism? Population genetics?

    OK, and how does population genetics tell us when the ancestor of birds become birds or what that ancestor was? :-)

    I was using NDE synonymously with “modern evolutionary synthesis” and I probably shouldn’t do that.

    Population genetics is good useful science and tells us a lot about how populations evolve. It can’t tell us how something can evolve into a snake, alligator and a lizard.

  89. 89

    When did whatever was the ancestor of birds become birds

    Well, birds emerged probably late Jurassic or early Cretaceous. IDers won’t even say that for fear of offending their YEC brethren.

  90. 90

    Joseph

    There isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates non-birds can “evolve” into birds via any mechanism.

    Can you put a name to these “non-birds”?

    Is it a dustbin? A diamond? A piece of quartz. All those are “non-birds”

    Once sexual reproduction was introduced, with 1/2 of each mates’ genomes being tossed out, the chance of accumulating mutations took a severe hit.

    Introduced by “the designer”? Are you sure? Maybe it sexual reproduction evolved all on it’s own. How can you be sure?

    Now the anatomical data says birds did not evolve from dinos nor reptiles.

    I guess that only leaves “design”? Right? Is that the best you’ve got?

    What mutations fixed the femur?

    the designer.

    And the fossils don’t help either…

    the designer.

  91. Information that is not reducible nor explainable by matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    Echidna-Levy:

    But if we postulate an “intelligent designer” that a few comments ago you said we know nothing about due to an “absence of direct observation or designer input” that fixes everything?

    1 That isn’t what I said (about the designer)

    2 It doesn’t fix anything

    3 We won’t find the info if we don’t know to look for it and under your dogma no one will look for it.

    IOW once again ignorance rules your position.

  92. 92

    tribune7

    Population genetics is good useful science and tells us a lot about how populations evolve. It can’t tell us how something can evolve into a snake, alligator and a lizard.

    Well, how do you suggest such things could be investigated? Does ID have any insight into how such things happened? Or does ID say that they did not happen?

  93. 93

    Echidna-levy:
    You’re more than welcome to provide some solid details on the specifics of bird evolution – the mechanisms, selective forces, and intermediate steps. Perhaps you could even tell us where in the world bird evolution took place.
    I think that despite mocking ID, you don’t really have a clue how bird evolution happened. You’ll tell some stories, but if pressed for specifics your so-called science will come up empty. What was it you told someone over on the other thread? Oh yes, “man up.”

  94. Echidna-Levy:

    Can you put a name to these “non-birds”?</blockquote?

    What non-birds? That is the point!

    Once sexual reproduction was introduced, with 1/2 of each mates’ genomes being tossed out, the chance of accumulating mutations took a severe hit.

    Introduced by “the designer”? Are you sure? Maybe it sexual reproduction evolved all on it’s own. How can you be sure?

    That doesn’t have anything to do with anything I said.

    My point is that sexual reproduction killed universal common descent.

    Now the anatomical data says birds did not evolve from dinos nor reptiles.

    I guess that only leaves “design”? Right? Is that the best you’ve got?

    It appears the best you have are ignorant laiden rantings against ID.

    So why even bother?

  95. 95

    1 That isn’t what I said (about the designer)

    Your words. Tell me what we do know about “the designer”.

    2 It doesn’t fix anything

    Fix what?

    3 We won’t find the info if we don’t know to look for it and under your dogma no one will look for it.

    Simply untrue. It is being looked for, it is being found.

    IOW once again ignorance rules your position.

    INA ignorance is your position.

    TBH IOW if you understood what a nested hierarchy was alot of this would be much simpler. The fact that all biological life fits into a nested hierarchy indicates that either “the designer” wanted to make it look like as if evolution did the job, or in fact evoltion did do the job.

  96. 96

    Joseph

    What non-birds? That is the point!

    You said

    There isn’t any genetic data which demonstrates non-birds can “evolve” into birds via any mechanism.

    How can you say there is no data if you don’t think non-birds exist? Logically in that case there can be no data!

    Tell me Joseph, which is more likely

    Birds evolved from a ancestor that was not a “bird”.

    Birds were created as-is by the designer, with feathers and everything.

  97. David Kellogg:

    Well, birds emerged probably late Jurassic or early Cretaceous. IDers won’t even say that for fear of offending their YEC brethren.

    Emerged from what? The mud?

    Also there is evidence birds were around in the late Triassic.

  98. 98

    I’m signing off for the evening. But I’m very excited about all the scientifically obtained specifics of bird evolution I’m going to receive when I check back tomorrow.
    ID has been repeatedly contrasted with evolution because ID doesn’t explain how. Obviously no sane person would make such a contrast unless they were prepared to give just such an explanation. I expect to find it tomorrow. No excuses.

  99. 99

    Scott

    You’re more than welcome to provide some solid details on the specifics of bird evolution – the mechanisms, selective forces, and intermediate steps. Perhaps you could even tell us where in the world bird evolution took place.

    I’d suggest if you are that interested you go back to university and study some. Then you can invesigate for yourself. Or will you stay at the ID university and do science from your armchair?

    I think that despite mocking ID, you don’t really have a clue how bird evolution happened.

    Yet you know birds were designed right?

    You’ll tell some stories, but if pressed for specifics your so-called science will come up empty.

    Tell me a single specific thing about how the designer created birds then.

    What was it you told someone over on the other thread? Oh yes, “man up.”

    Indeed. I’m waiting for something specific.

  100. #72 ScottAndrews

    One more time before I go to bed.

    ID is not about how something was made.

    So it does not attempt to answer the question – how did birds come about? Or the question how did life begin? What question is it answering then?


    Inherited variation – that’s just another way of saying something changed and passed it on. You’re just saying the same thing in different words. What variation?

    You see it round you all the time. Do you have children? Are they identical to you? Will some of those differences be passed on to their children? Look!

  101. 101

    Scott

    I’m signing off for the evening. But I’m very excited about all the scientifically obtained specifics of bird evolution I’m going to receive when I check back tomorrow.

    http://dml.cmnh.org/2009Jun/threads.html
    http://dml.cmnh.org/2009Jun/msg00066.html
    http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=16321
    http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm
    evidence of dinos *with* avian-like respiratory systems:
    http://www.talkrational.org/sh.....post521053
    http://www.talkrational.org/sh.....post523164

    It’s called grown ups talking real science. I’ll speak to you tommrow.

  102. TBH IOW if you understood what a nested hierarchy was alot of this would be much simpler. The fact that all biological life fits into a nested hierarchy indicates that either “the designer” wanted to make it look like as if evolution did the job, or in fact evoltion did do the job.

    Nested hierarchy was first used as evidence for a common design.

    And seeing that evolution doesn’t have a direction and nested hierarchy demands a direction of additive characteristics, only people who don’t understand nested hierarchy think it is evidence for UCD.

    Also Darwin used extinctions, not descent, to explain the distinct categories.

    Ya see he was smart enough to know that transitionals blur the line and NH violations occur.

    It is amazing how much devolution evolutionists have gone through.

    As I said ignorance is your position.

  103. 103

    Joseph

    And seeing that evolution doesn’t have a direction and nested hierarchy demands a direction of additive characteristics, only people who don’t understand nested hierarchy think it is evidence for UCD.

    So I guess that’s the difference between you and an real scientist then.

    You think that it’s not evidence, real scientists disagree.

    Keep on with the good work! It’s making a real impression out there with actual scientists. ROFL.

    Ever tried writing up your views in a paper and submitting it to a peer reviewed journal? Why ever not? Or are blogs it for you?

  104. Joseph,
    All the PDF does is say ‘God Dun It!’, and if god did it, I ask, why do science?

    “Well just as Newton did, to understand what “God” did.”

    That’s a great summary. Postulating god doesn’t end research, the how and why of it are still just as unknown as in neodarwinism.

  105. And seeing that evolution doesn’t have a direction and nested hierarchy demands a direction of additive characteristics, only people who don’t understand nested hierarchy think it is evidence for UCD.

    So I guess that’s the difference between you and an real scientist then.

    You think that it’s not evidence, real scientists disagree.

    Dr Denton is a real scientist and he agrees with me.

    Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim.

    OTOH I and Denton have provided more than enough information yo refute their claim.

    And that you can’t understand the logic pretty much exposes your position of willfull ignorance.

  106. 106

    I asked:

    What contribution to understanding is ID supposed to make?

    To which Joseph, in his always helpful and courteous way, responded:

    Information.

    And yet ID’s contribution to information has gone unnoticed by people in the science of, um, information.

  107. ScottAndrews @ 72

    I didn’t throw in the towel on ID. ID has nothing to do with mechanisms, for reasons that you’ve read countless times but don’t seem to reach you. Thermometers don’t tell you why it’s hot. Fingerprints don’t tell you why a person touched something. ID is not about how something was made. Read that several times.

    You then proceed further to comment on a explanation that you claim is in a different realm of study to that of ID.

    If ID does not deal with mechanisms, then what is the issue with the ToE? Why would the person that makes thermometers argue with the person you controls the temperature? Is it getting a little hot in here for you? (hehe, sorry couldn’t resist!)

    Seriously! Whats your beef dude? If you’ve no theory in opposition to ToE, then by your own admission you’ve no reason not to let it get on with whats its doing (telling us how we came about).

    Love you !

  108. 108

    Joseph,

    Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim.

    Prove it!

    And that you can’t understand the logic pretty much exposes your position of willfull ignorance.

    And yet here you sit, on a blog arguing with anonymous people like me thinking that you are actually getting somewhere.

    I can do this, I know that actual work is also going on without me.

    Yet you and yours are all ID has got!

    If I was in your position I’d spend less time insulting clowns and more time doing something constructive that might actually have a chance of changing something out there in the real world.

    Tell me, as evoltuion has been a “theory in crisis” according to some since it was written down do you think you’ll see the end of it in the next 5 years? 50?

  109. Nnoel,
    “If you’ve no theory in opposition to ToE, then by your own admission you’ve no reason not to let it get on with whats its doing (telling us how we came about).”

    You can’t be serious. For IDers that believe in the ToE, there’s plenty of room for another type of ToE. Genome entropy and cambrian explosion demand it. So what if ID doesn’t have a theory beyond that it was ID’d? It only needs to disprove materialism can make it happen. It can go all the way with that.

  110. Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim.

    Echidna-Levy:

    Prove it!

    I have already proven that evolution shouldn’t expect a nested hierarchy.

    What else do you want?

    And yet here you sit, on a blog arguing with anonymous people like me thinking that you are actually getting somewhere.

    This is just practice abd it also exposes the ignorance of you and your ilk.

    Yet you and yours are all ID has got!

    And you and your ignorance are all you have.

    If I was in your position I’d spend less time insulting clowns and more time doing something constructive that might actually have a chance of changing something out there in the real world.

    In order for you to be in my position you would first need an education.

    But that ain’t happenin’, is it?

    One thing is for sure your ignorance isn’t going to change anything.

    Tell me, as evoltuion has been a “theory in crisis” according to some since it was written down do you think you’ll see the end of it in the next 5 years? 50?

    It won’t end it will just be revised to accomodate reality.

  111. 111

    Just checking in – nothing yet, I see, except links to a some forums about dinosaur heredity. Not a shred, not a single scientific detail about how birds evolved from dinosaurs.
    Echidna and others, I’m challenging that your theory, which proposes to explain the origin of species, does not explain the origin of birds. Not a hypothetical branch on the tree of life – how did it happen? Why did it happen?
    If your theory explains this, then explain it. The rest is noise.
    Anyone can talk Echidna, anyone can mock. I say there’s nothing behind it. The only ghost I believe in is you. Prove me wrong.

  112. David Kellogg:

    And yet ID’s contribution to information has gone unnoticed by people in the science of, um, information.

    Two separate areas for reasons I have already explained to you.

    BTW ID’s “information” is in line with information technology, which is more important than any of the alleged information “sciences” (which don’t deal with “information”).

    And just because some scientists can ignore something that ignorance is not a refutation.

  113. ID’s mechanisms are as simple as what Dr Spetner put forth in “Not By Chance” in 1997.

    “Built-in responses to environmental cues”- ie directed mutations- directed by the cells and/or organisms needs.

    For example a gene duplication with a rapid integration would be a good sign of a directed mutation.

    That is because in order for a duplicated gene to do anything it requires a new binding site.

    A whole new binding site within its regulatory region.

    And seeing that getting one mutation to turn on a binding site is pretty much out of the reach of undirected processes, getting a whole new binding site would then be evidence for design as it is specified.

  114. 114

    ScottAndrews:

    Anyone can talk Echidna, anyone can mock.

    No kidding, ScottAndrews. That’s all you’ve been doing.

    The burden is on ID to provide something real. So far they haven’t done it.

  115. David Kellogg:

    The burden is on ID to provide something real.

    ID is based on observations and experience.

    ID can be tested.

    That is as real as it gets.

    Your position doesn’t have anything real- just a glossy narrative.

  116. 116

    Joseph:

    Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim.

    Reminds me of Shelley:

    “My name is Joseph, blogger of bloggers:
    Look upon my words, Evolutionists, and despair!”
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

    By the way, Joseph, ID has been ignored not just by information science but by every established science.

  117. David Kellogg:

    By the way, Joseph, ID has been ignored not just by information science but by every established science.

    And the theory of evolution is built on ignorance.

    Something in common.

    Also sciences can’t ignore.

    However it is obvious that scientists aren’t ignoring ID.

  118. Even better not one of the scientists who disagrees with me can substantiate their claim.

    David Kellogg:

    Reminds me of Shelley:

    Which is about all you know about nested hierarchies.

  119. “It’s called grown ups talking real science. I’ll speak to you tommrow.”

    Why would a person with such an attitude bother to spend one minute here? Why do any of the anti ID people come here? If I disdained anything I would not spend a minute there. They do not come here with a pleasant attitude or in the spirit of having a conversation. They come here in an attempt to put people down. What drives individuals to behave like this. Whatever it is, it is not very flattering.

  120. Jerry,

    It’s entertainment.

    Don’t you think it’s funny watching people flail away at things they refuse to understand?

    It is almost as good as watching “South Park”.

  121. “Don’t you think it’s funny watching people flail away at things they refuse to understand?”

    Not really. There has only been one anti ID person here who I respected and he has not posted here in almost two years. That was great_ape. The rest I could do without because I seldom learn anything from them. Sometimes, Allen MacNeill is rewarding to talk with when he is not blustering away about things he does not like about ID.

    The rest are here only for some unknown need which drives an almost 100% negative flow of comments of baiting and put downs. I actually find it unpleasant trying to have a conversation with someone who I would excuse myself from after about 30 second in a bar. I don’t mind differences of opinion but the complete lack of respect exhibited is not a desirable trait in anyone.

    And I think that most of them do understand the ID position but that isn’t their objective. They are trying to bait people into unpleasant conversations. And far too often they succeed.

  122. David Kellogg,

    No worries, you can’t offend me and your attempts just make me laugh.

  123. Jerry,

    Right you are and that is why I am all for forgetting the talk and breaking out the baseball bats and brass knuckles just as PZ wants.

  124. “I, personally, have not seen a SHRED of dishonesty among those that propagate pro-evolution ideas, while I cannot find a single honest proponent of ID.”

    Haeckel’s embryos was already brought up. The illustrations were fraudulent and Haeckel knew this. So did many scientists who continued to use it to point out how marvelous evolution worked.

    Piltdown man. Seriously, do I have to bring this up?

    Archaeoraptor. In 1999, National Geographic published a fawning article about how this proved dinosaurs evolved from birds (or into birds, I don’t remember). The fossil was a fake and the magazine had to print a retraction.

    You say that you have seen no dishonesty? I respectfully suggest you open your eyes.

  125. 125

    Archaeoraptor. In 1999, National Geographic published a fawning article about how this proved dinosaurs evolved from birds (or into birds, I don’t remember). The fossil was a fake and the magazine had to print a retraction.

    That claim didn’t pass scientific peer review. Wikipedia:

    On August 20 Nature rejected the paper, indicating to the Czerkases that National Geographic had refused to delay publication, leaving too little time for peer review. The authors then submitted the paper to Science, which sent it out for peer review. Two reviewers informed Science that “the specimen was smuggled out of China and illegally purchased” and that the fossil had been “doctored” in China “to enhance its value.” Science then rejected the paper. According to Sloan, the Czerkases did not inform National Geographic about the details of the two rejections.[6]

    It was establishment science — the very peer review that IDers constantly bypass — that rejected the claim.

  126. Barb says:

    Haeckel’s embryos was already brought up.

    I’m pleased that you’ll be informing the owner of this blog of your distaste for schematic illustrations. :)

  127. “Right you are and that is why I am all for forgetting the talk and breaking out the baseball bats and brass knuckles just as PZ wants.”

    I know you have played hockey and my son played a lot of hockey and one of his coaches (a real hard ass from near Montreal) once told the parents that hockey is a sport of courage won in the corners. So if their son was going to play for him they better be ready to dish it out and take it when the puck was loose behind the net. It was a war there.

    One of his drills was to have two skaters from opposite sides of the rink go after a puck loose behind the net and then skate it out in front of the net and take a shot. If you lost and the other guy took a shot, then you went into the losers side of the rink. Those who came away with the puck the most were the ones who generally made the team. Nobody wanted to be on the loser’s side of the rink. There was a lot of hitting fighting for the puck. Great drill. Great game.

  128. Joseph,

    Right you are and that is why I am all for forgetting the talk and breaking out the baseball bats and brass knuckles just as PZ wants.

    I hear you, bro. However, I don’t think the solution involves violence. Rather, I believe we should focus on things like “Expelled”, “The Voyage that Shook the World”, Ken Ham’s Creation Museum, that Ark thing in Hong Kong, etc. Education truly is the answer.

  129. Great drill. Great game.

    Poor science.

  130. 130

    “Don’t you think it’s funny watching people flail away at things they refuse to understand?”

    There are, of course, those who havent a clue, and others who swim in willful ignorance, but don’t think for a moment they (the scientists) don’t understand it. These ridiculous counter-arguments don’t come from mis-understanding, but from the lack of a meaningful counter-argument to propogate in its place..

    It’s like someone saying “ID has been ignored not just by information science but by every established science.” That reaches the territory of a gutteral laugh. Take an inventory of the continuous attempts to rebuke it and trash the reputations of anyone speaks of it in virtually any way possible. Paulie didn’t drive a rusty nail through a “goddamned cracker” because he just happened to have one handy and had nothing else to do but photograph his delicious deed for all to see. Dawkin’s buses weren’t a call for joy to passers by. The NCSE hasn’t formed a public realtions campaign chase alchemy from its midst.

    The interesting question is it that they fear from the evidence?

  131. herb:

    I hear you, bro. However, I don’t think the solution involves violence. Rather, I believe we should focus on things like “Expelled”, “The Voyage that Shook the World”, Ken Ham’s Creation Museum, that Ark thing in Hong Kong, etc. Education truly is the answer

    Ken Ham will tell you that it is not his museum.

    I’m just correcting you on a technical point in…err… I.D. theory.

    Ken says that the museum actually belongs to the Designer.

  132. icon: Thanks, I stand corrected.

  133. “Poor science.”

    The science of checking does not exist. It is an art.

  134. Joseph@115 said:

    ID is based on observations and experience.

    Last I checked, the ID movement was run almost entirely by philosophers, mathematicians and comp-sci or engineering guys. And lest I forget the lawyers. (PROTIP: None of these people are particularly well known for being acquainted with the “observations and experience” relevant to evolutionary biology.)

    ID can be tested.

    To the extent that ID has made some specific falsifiable claims, I agree, it can. (Although I will note that it’s very strange that the ID advocates never try to do this testing themselves. Merely a coincidence, I’m sure.) Let’s take one example:

    “Irreducible complexity”.

    First, let’s ignore the fact that IC (as defined by Behe) was originally a prediction of evolutionary theory made by H.J. Muller, and the falsity that Behe’s IC cannot evolve.

    For all three of the major examples of IC proposed by Behe (the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and the blood-clotting cascade), we’ve examined them and determined that he’s wrong. We can remove parts and the system will keep on working.

    Test failed.

    ID can be tested.

    No. Individual cases, like the ones I’ve listed above can be tested. ID cannot. No matter how many examples of supposed IC we investigate and debunk, there will always be more unknowns lurking around that you can label IC.

    A good scientific theory doesn’t shrink away from explanations, it expands explanations. That’s why ID is not science, and that’s why ID is a god-of-the-gaps argument. (It also explains why ID researchers never bother to look in the gaps themselves. This shunning away from investigation is also, I need not say, the very antithesis of science.)

  135. UprightBiPed:

    “The NCSE hasn’t formed a public realtions campaign chase alchemy from its midst.”

    Ken Ham hasn’t started a museum on it yet. And I doubt if many American children are indoctrinated with a strict belief in alchemy from a pre-school age.

    “The interesting question is it that they fear from the evidence?”

    Evidence? You mean the stuff in the museums that “herb” was referring to?

  136. 136

    icon,

    “Ken Ham hasn’t started a museum on it yet. And I doubt if many American children are indoctrinated with a strict belief in alchemy from a pre-school age.”

    1) What does Ken Ham, or any other person, have to do with the observable evidence that chance cannot coordinate disperate objects within molecular systems? Or, that researchers know of no qualities associated with chance mechanisms that could create the patterns observed in the sequencing of nucleotides?

    2) So, you have an ideological battle against how American parents raise their children, and apparently, your battle will be complete when no one does anything that violates your ideology.

    3) You expect to be taken seriously on both counts.

  137. 137

    …all science so far Icon. :)

  138. “For all three of the major examples of IC proposed by Behe (the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and the blood-clotting cascade), we’ve examined them and determined that he’s wrong. We can remove parts and the system will keep on working”

    I have seen this argument tried again and again. But it is a straw-man argument. If an IC system exist, and then one adds a feature to it such as adding a muffler to an exhaust system, is the new system still IC. Yes, but taking the muffler away does cause the system to be dysfunctional and this does not disprove that the original system is not IC or the improved system with the muffler is not IC because a part could still be removed and it would still work as an exhaust system. There may be other parts that could also be removed and it would still operate as an exhaust system but that still does not mean it is not an IC system. If at some level there will be no parts to take away and still have the system function, then the system is IC. The whole point of an IC system is that there is no pathway that a single part could be added from a preceding system and the new system is a better system or a different system that leads to selection.

    An IC system is one such that one cannot take parts away one at a time until there are none and have the system still be functional at each level using all the parts available in a systematic way at that level. The function could change each time but at each level all the parts are contributing and the total is functional. If at any level the remaining parts are not functioning in some systematic way with each other then the system is considered IC. By the way at each level it does not mean that each part is essential, only that it functions as part of the system and improves the system and would lead to its selection.

    So for the exhaust system, the muffler is not necessary but useful. Suppose that one added another part which turned the exhaust system into a secondary source of energy, then the new system would also be IC because you could subtract the new part and the system would still be functional. Subtract the muffler and the system would still be functional but then there may not be any parts to subtract and leave the system functional using all the parts. If one wants to disprove an IC system, then one has to show a pathway such that each incremental part makes the system different or better. That is give it a reason for the new particular combination to be selected. That is, it is functional all the way down.

    I have seen some very speculative ideas for a series of steps for the step wise evolution of the flagellum. The question is how plausible each step is in terms of function and then selection and how easily each could be constructed in an orderly process in the genome. It is not enough that the parts exist but the genome has to assemble them piece by piece.

  139. Jerry:

    Take it up with Behe. He’s the one who defined “irreducible complexity”, not me.

    And what you’re doing is exactly what I said you’d do: move the goalposts.

    A: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex! (And because it is IC, I’m not even going to waste my own time trying to disprove my theory! How convenient! I’m right by default!)
    B: No it’s not. We can take away a bunch of its parts and get the TTSS. Also, its parts are homologous with other proteins that have other roles elsewhere in the cell.
    A: Okay, well then the TTSS is irreducibly complex!
    B: Despite the fact that we know the IC is a flawed concept because evolution CAN produce what you call “irreducible complexity”, are you just going to keep labelling things “irreducibly complex” if we don’t already have an precise explanation for their origin?
    A: Yes.
    B: And you’re not going to investigate any of those things either right?
    A: No.
    B: Well, alright then.

  140. 140

    Tajimas,

    You said “We can remove parts and the system will keep on working”

    Below is a description of chemical sight, can you please give me the specific “part” you can remove from the organization and the “system will keep on working”

    And if this is an actual emperical observation, then please provide a link to the research that accomplished this “part” removal and subsequently confirmed that sight was maintained. Thanks, I look forward to reading it.

    When light strikes the retina of the eye, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to form trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before interacting with activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

  141. 141

    Upright BiPed @ 140

    Ouch! That’s like playing tiddlywinks on a roller coaster!

    I think the neo-Darwinists expect to still be playing with a ball of silly putty, (Goo) that when disturbed will yield similar results no matter what you do to it.

  142. 142

    Upright
    Here is a list of eye types

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye

    It seems to me that each different type of eye has “something removed” from it when compared to other types of eye.

    A light sensitive patch is a eye with everything but light sensitivity removed.

    And if this is an actual emperical observation, then please provide a link to the research that accomplished this “part” removal and subsequently confirmed that sight was maintained.

    Words are tricky. People can have their eyes damaged from disease and significant parts damaged by accidents etc yet “sight” remains.

    Please define “sight”. If you mean “eyesight exactly as good as it was before the part was removed or damaged” then no, it won’t be the same. If you mean “some degree of sight” then yes, you can remove parts (as shown by the list of eye types and diseases) and “sight” remains.

    What use is half an eye?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

    Oh, but I guess because it’s TO it’s not worth reading.

    Try this instead

    http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Eye_Evolution

    Plenty more examples out there.

  143. 143

    Thanks Levy,

    Based on your exciting claim ““We can remove parts and the system will keep on working”, I was merely asking for the exact “part” that “we can remove” and the “system will keep on working”.

    I wasn’t actually asking about diseases, or damaged organs. I don’t particularly think of diseases and damaged organs in the same way as researchers and scientists removing “parts” to show that the “system will keep on working”.

    And, you certainly don’t have to use the example I gave, please feel free to offer the cascading organization of ANY sight system you wish, then please give the “part” that can be removed and have “the system () keep on working”

    Can you do that, thanks!

  144. 144

    “Here is a list of eye types”

    Yup.

  145. UprightBiPed:

    What does Ken Ham, or any other person, have to do with the observable evidence that chance cannot coordinate disperate objects within molecular systems? Or, that researchers know of no qualities associated with chance mechanisms that could create the patterns observed in the sequencing of nucleotides?

    Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb, who thinks the Kentucky Flintstones museum provides scientific I.D. education. Do you agree or disagree?

    As for “chance”, researchers certainly know of no way that it could assemble intelligent designers of life prior to life existing. That’s why they expect natural selection to be involved in the chemical evolution of life.

    2) So, you have an ideological battle against how American parents raise their children, and apparently, your battle will be complete when no one does anything that violates your ideology.

    As with all pluralists, it’s against my ideology for no-one to do anything that violates my ideology. :)

    3) You expect to be taken seriously on both counts.

    …all science so far Icon.:)

    The post I was replying to wasn’t science, neither is the “god of the gaps” bit in the one I’m replying to now. :)

  146. 146

    Echidna-Levy, David Kellogg, etc.,
    I claimed yesterday that evolutionary science offers no explanation of how birds evolved, and challenged you correct me. Is this not what evolutionary theory does, explain how living things evolved? Without any scientific detail explaining how such a transition took place, your explanation is reduced to ‘they evolved,’ with a bunch of guesses piled on top. Pretty thin on science, as Mr. Kellogg would say.
    So I ask again, what are the causes, mechanisms, and steps that resulted in bird evolution?
    Neutral readers, observe the creative excuses and counter-charges used to distract from the lack of an answer to this simple question. Be careful to distinguish between science and guessing. Do not take your eye off the question.

  147. 147

    Upright
    Take your pick
    http://scholar.google.com/scho.....38;spell=1

    A random example

    Homeobox genes play a number of critical roles in early central nervous system (CNS) patterning[1]. The Mbx gene, a novel paired-type homeobox gene, was identified in the zebrafish and human genomes[2]. The MBX homeodomain possesses some similarities to that of Pax family proteins. Since knockdown of mbx expression by morpholino antisense oligonucleotides (mbx-MO) leads to a reduction in the size of the eyes and tectum in the zebrafish[2], mbx function has been proposed to be involved in anterior brain development, including the formation of the eyes and tectum.

    Why don’t you pick a paper and present your objection?

  148. 148

    ScottAndrews

    So I ask again, what are the causes, mechanisms, and steps that resulted in bird evolution?

    In fact I know the answer to that question and will gladly supply it to any level of detail you require once you tell me your theory of how the intelligent designer created birds.

  149. 149

    Echidna-Levy:
    Distraction #1.
    ID isn’t a theory of how anything was made, ever. That explanation isn’t coming, ever.
    You’re saying that you know the answer but you refuse to give it. I don’t believe you. No one does.
    What are the causes, mechanisms, and steps that resulted in bird evolution?

  150. Tajimas D,

    What do you know of ID?

    I take it from your response you don’t know very much,

    IC is alive and well.

    Yuo say:

    First, let’s ignore the fact that IC (as defined by Behe) was originally a prediction of evolutionary theory made by H.J. Muller, and the falsity that Behe’s IC cannot evolve.

    Yet IC is not anti-evolution, the alleged prediction is bogus- no reasoning behind it.

    For all three of the major examples of IC proposed by Behe (the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and the blood-clotting cascade), we’ve examined them and determined that he’s wrong. We can remove parts and the system will keep on working.

    That is false. IC core parts cannot be removed and still have the system function.

    Ken Miller’s blood-clotting has been shown to be bogus.

    ID can be tested.

    No. Individual cases, like the ones I’ve listed above can be tested. ID cannot. No matter how many examples of supposed IC we investigate and debunk, there will always be more unknowns lurking around that you can label IC.

    Dr Behe addressed that so your ignorance is not a refutation.

    And seeing that the theory of evolution can’t be objectively tested I would say you should focus on your position as opposed to arguing from ignorance against ID.

    Ya see all you have to do to falsify ID is to actually support your position with real scientific data,

    Good luck with that.

  151. Tajimas D:

    Despite the fact that we know the IC is a flawed concept because evolution CAN produce what you call “irreducible complexity”, are you just going to keep labelling things “irreducibly complex” if we don’t already have an precise explanation for their origin?

    The theory of evolution is a flawed concept, yet it goes on.

    “Evolution” is not being debated and an accumulation of genetic accidents has never been observed to produce an IC system.

    Or perhaps you could reference the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates such a thing.

    “Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that
    irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)

    Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is
    unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.

    In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
    experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex
    system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

    How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”-Dr Behe

    IOW if it ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement, ID falls as living organisms are the ultimate in IC.

  152. Echidna-Levy,

    What is the evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can cobble together regulatory networks and genetic toolkits?

    You throw around HOX genes and your position has no way of explaining how they even arose.

    2 specified mutations- just 2- takes 25 million years in a population of fruit flies.

    Do you think bird from non-bird required more than 2 specified mutations?

  153. iconofid:

    That’s why they expect natural selection to be involved in the chemical evolution of life.

    It can’t be. NS is only AFTER living organisms appear, not before.

    “Pre-biotic natural selection is a contradiction in terms.” T Dozhansky.

  154. 154

    If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection

    This has been hypothesized, never demonstrated. It’s not sufficient to suggest how natural processes might produce IC.

  155. “Take it up with Behe. He’s the one who defined “irreducible complexity”, not me.”

    It is not a specific definition of IC that is under debate or who originally formulated it but rather the concept it represents. It is if a path can be found that gradually leads to a supposed IC system. That is the issue. If such a path is easily found and plausible then the system would not be classified as IC. We can use our imaginations to construct possible paths but the issue is if these paths actually existed and if they did why they do not currently exist. The best way to falsify Behe is to find these partial paths and their intermediary functions.

    Behe proposed an interesting problem and one that science should willingly investigate because it represents a thorny issue for the dominant paradigm. By the way one of the problems with the dominant paradigm is the lack of these paths which have been hypothesized to have happened for nearly everything in evolution. The dead ends should be there as well as the completed paths because every dead end represents a functional organism or system.

    Behe’s second book expanded on this problem of generating intermediaries by hypothesizing a limit to what natural process can do. This hypothesis will be tested in the future as genome after genome is mapped and then understood. This is one way that either Behe’s thesis will be verified or over turned. Right now I do not see too many of these partial path ways illustrated. I am sure some exist but all must have existed at one time for the theory to be viable. Many will have gone extinct but most should be around somewhere since the organisms with them were completely viable and should have left descendants. Just as the SINEs, LINEs, ERVs, AREs, pseudogenes etc still exist, so should these dead ends. The question is where are they.

    That is one of the big questions science will try to answer in the next 30 years or longer.

  156. 156

    Icon,

    In response to my post at 142, Icon says at 143:

    Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb

    You want me to ask Herb my question to you? Okay.

    Herb – does the existence of a person (or a personality) change any of the physical effects of matter as we know them?

    Now after he answers,, you can answer the same question.

    As for “chance”, researchers certainly know of no way that it could assemble intelligent designers of life prior to life existing. That’s why they expect natural selection to be involved in the chemical evolution of life.

    Such an odd question is certainly outside of empirical science, would you not agree? That’s why no one, certainly not me, asks such things.

    Perhaps you could focus your attention on the actual issues, or explain why you refuse to.

    As with all pluralists, it’s against my ideology for no-one to do anything that violates my ideology.

    One of the hallmarks of proper scientific investigation is to limit the effects of one’s personal ideology to a position coming after an understanding of the observable evidence, not as a filter for whatever conclusions you make. Perhaps you were not aware of this.

    The post I was replying to wasn’t science, neither is the “god of the gaps” bit in the one I’m replying to now.

    You seem to misunderstand the term “God of the Gaps”. It refers to inserting an ideological answer where ever we have no understanding of the subject at hand.

    In this case, the issue is not raised by what we don’t know, but by what we do know.

    For instance we know that there are no physical forces that can account for the sequencing of nucleotides in DNA, and we know that chance operates by repeating maximum certainty, and is therefore incapable or coordinating and organizing discreet physical objects with living tissue.

    If you do not have evidence that there are, in fact, some natural forces that can account for the linear sequencing of nucleotides, or perhaps an observation where chance is seen as not operating under maximum uncertainty and has brought about complex algorithmic coordination of discreet objects – then we are rationally obliged to operate under what we do know by means of scientific observation, instead of what we don’t know by means of your ideological preconceptions. That is called empirical science.

    On the other hand, if you insist on injecting your ideology above what we actually know to be true by means of observation and testing, then it is not a “God of the Gaps” fallacy that is being committed, but instead it is nothing more than a person insisting that their ideology not be subject to falsification by known evidence.

    If you’d like to think up a fancy name for that, then be my guest.

  157. Oh guys, you have written greate meny things about what use ID is for.

    I like think about science as a way to give ppl good technologies. Any discipline which brings me cheaper beer on table then preivous, is good science.

    So… question about ID and Evolution is… what technologies they put on table.

    Evolution put ideological materialism as technology. It gives ungodly ppl some sense of comfort that nobody is watching them, and they are final reason and cause of any morality. Well, it IS technology, social technology…

    What does ID gives.
    ID gives method. It is like light bulb which enlighens dark parts of rooms where science is going. ID tells us WHERE to look and WHAT FOR to look. As it was sayed here… it tells us something about information. It gives us method of reasearch. It gives us workable assumptions and hypothesis to work on… Its grant claim, if something is designed, then it is functional brings us very greate technology of method – if we find out that something is designed, we can ask for money to research it’s functionality. But if somebody says, it is JUNK, and everybody buys it, then we will stuck into darg ages for several decades, until somebody goes and finds out that JUNK is functional Junk. ID gives us tools and means to disntingush junk from complexity. Grand ID result would be Intelligence Detection Technique… Formal methods to detect artificial artefacts… wouldn’t that be greate technology!

    And… if ID is obsessed with design, then ID for today is only discipline having ANY chances of creating AI!

    Also… I see ppl here infere process from static data. They observe static fossils, and infere nature of process which produced such pattern.

    Only observable process who is able today produce static “fossils” of complex machines is human mind… Where Evolutionists actually come with idea that there is possible another proceess of “machine fossile” production capabilities? Why not take the one we can observe here out in the window? Why make things complex? Why not take the very osbervable process and phenomena as given?

    If you dig up all the old cars starging from 19th century, you will see the same “evolution”, parts being added, better cars created, different species appearing… Patter is THE SAME… But we KNOW process which created the pattern. Then why invent another process and nature, why not infere design, as it is the only observable, testable and detectable way to explain evolution of machines.

    Somebody brought up language evolution… And somehow ppl missed, that it was possible only as result of mind! I don’t know any theory of language differing on random mutations or appearing from nowhere… Any changes in languages, blending, diversing allways comes as the result of mind working… So how does language evolution gives arguments to Evolutionists? It refutes it again! Evolution without mind is not possible nor observable! Why claim otherwise without evidence of the process?

    And if one says, that “adaptation” is evidence of evolution, then try to design machines wich adapt to environment, and then say again – that it is task achievable by unguided random chance.

    Which of you would fly on airplain whos software is designed by Evolutionar process…

    And… why do we still do coding, why don’t we yoke that very clear, specified and factual process of evolution into real sofware production of novel features… And don’t say ourday computers wouldn’t be able to produce severam million generations a day, to achieve real functional machine designes of cell level nanoscale complexity for us to use in everyday!

    Se… EVolutionists do big talks, they somehow hide the process from ppl to use…

    As I sayed, measurement of science is technology… Intelectual satisfaction of given story wouldn’t qualify as technology per se!

  158. 158

    In response to my post at 142, Levy says:

    Upright, Take your pick…

    So, after being given repeated chances to substantiate your claim that:

    “We can remove parts and the system will keep on working” (regarding irreducible systems)

    …we can now assume that when you were simply being dishonest (or perhaps careless and loose with what you actually know to be true).

    It is patently not true that when we approach such irreducible systems (blood-clotting, the chemical vision cascade, flagella, etc), that “We can remove parts and the system will keep on working.”

    What you claim is not true, and can be dismissed as such.

  159. Ohh… and random mutation working on functional organisms is observable in everyday. It is called Cancer.

    So as South Park sayed, ppl are retarded fish… fish suffering from Cancer.

    Only Evolutionists somehow ommit the only really observable RM working on real organisms, coz it looks ugly!

  160. 160

    It’s been several hours since Echidna-Levy pronounced that he knows what the mechanisms, causes, and steps of bird evolution were, and could provide them in as much detail as I would like. While we wait, I’ll share some advice that Mr. Echidna offered in another thread:

    Put on your shining armour of truth and get your sword of justice and make your case where people can ask you questions about your “facts” and you can respond.

    Is that how you really feel, or is that just something you tell other people?

  161. UprightBiPed:

    In response to my post at 142, Icon says at 143:

    Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb

    You want me to ask Herb my question to you? Okay.

    Herb – does the existence of a person (or a personality) change any of the physical effects of matter as we know them.

    Which was originally this:

    What does Ken Ham, or any other person, have to do with the observable evidence that chance cannot coordinate disperate objects within molecular systems? Or, that researchers know of no qualities associated with chance mechanisms that could create the patterns observed in the sequencing of nucleotides?

    To which my answer was this:

    “Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb, who thinks the Kentucky Flintstones museum provides scientific I.D. education. Do you agree or disagree?”

    So, do you agree or disagree that the creation museum provides a scientific I.D. education? I still don’t have an answer. Do you, or the I.D. movement as a whole, support this museum?

    Then UprightB. quotes icon:

    “As for “chance”, researchers certainly know of no way that it could assemble intelligent designers of life prior to life existing. That’s why they expect natural selection to be involved in the chemical evolution of life.”

    And says, with commendable honesty:

    Such an odd question is certainly outside of empirical science, would you not agree? That’s why no one, certainly not me, asks such things.

    An apparent agreement with those who claim that I.D. is not science.

    Then:

    For instance we know that there are no physical forces that can account for the sequencing of nucleotides in DNA, and we know that chance operates by repeating maximum certainty, and is therefore incapable or coordinating and organizing discreet physical objects with living tissue.

    No, you do not know this, and cannot. It is a “god of the gaps” argument. And you are inadvertently making the case that natural intelligent designers can’t exist. Yet we’re here. The evidence is heavily against you.

    Now, you’re the guy who’s fond of “null hypotheses”, if I remember rightly.

    So here’s one for you, and it’s based on observations, without exceptions to the rule.

    “Organized FSCI is a prerequisite for the existence of intelligent designers.”

    (Icon’s law :). You can substitute sequenced nucleotides for FSCI, if you want).

    Icon’s law is as well or better supported than Pasteur’s law.

    Therefore, the existence of FSCI cannot, in itself, be evidence for I.D.

  162. 162

    Iconofid:
    We’ve been here before. Unable to explain the origin of life via natural forces, you do some hand-waving to eliminate the possibility you’re ideologically opposed to. Presto! The seemingly impossible is now a scientific inevitability, even with no science to back it up.
    It’s a card trick.

  163. 163

    ScottAndrews:

    It’s been several hours since Echidna-Levy pronounced that he knows what the mechanisms, causes, and steps of bird evolution were, and could provide them in as much detail as I would like.

    Not really. Echidna suggested you provide something on your side, and you declined.
    In fact, you’re BS’ing. You’re playing Monty Python’s bridgekeeper. No answer from evolutionary will ever “as much detail as [you] would like,” because you will keep saying you need more.

    Meanwhile your standard for ID is along the lines of “What . . . is your favorite color?”

  164. ScottAndrews:

    Iconofid:
    We’ve been here before. Unable to explain the origin of life via natural forces, you do some hand-waving to eliminate the possibility you’re ideologically opposed to. Presto! The seemingly impossible is now a scientific inevitability, even with no science to back it up.
    It’s a card trick

    Do we have a step by step detailed explanation of the formation of the earth, or the Saturn system with its rings and moons at this moment in time? If not, does that mean that magic is required? Does it mean that Mr. Andrews would be being rational to stick his god in the gaps?

    Have you checked out the progress of OOL research over recent years? There is certainly no need to break any natural laws for it to happen, and it is perfectly in keeping with what we know of physics and chemistry.

    It is only creationists who will tell you it is impossible (as they always have) and now, of course, some I.D.ists (not all, actually).

  165. David Kellogg.

    In fact, you’re BS’ing. You’re playing Monty Python’s bridgekeeper. No answer from evolutionary will ever “as much detail as [you] would like,” because you will keep saying you need more.

    What utter tripe. If Echidna-Levy knows the mechanisms, causes, and steps of bird evolution he should stop wasting time on this blog and immediately publish in Nature or Science, because the whole world of evolutionary science would love to know how birds evolved.

  166. ionfeld:

    Have you checked out the progress of OOL research over recent years? There is certainly no need to break any natural laws for it to happen, and it is perfectly in keeping with what we know of physics and chemistry.

    Yes I have and abiogenesis is a bigger myth now than it ever has been. If, like Echidna-Levy and his flawless knowledge of bird evolution, you know how life began, I recommend you stop wasting time on this blog and immediately go publish in any of the most esteemed scientific journals.

  167. 167

    BTW, from the name, Echidna is likely a woman.

    Let me repost Echidna’s comment above:

    In fact I know the answer to that question and will gladly supply it to any level of detail you require once you tell me your theory of how the intelligent designer created birds.

    To which ScottAndrews replied:

    ID isn’t a theory of how anything was made, ever. That explanation isn’t coming, ever.

    He should have stopped at “ID isn’t a theory,” but hey.

    Scott to ID compatriots: “What . . . is your favorite color?”

    “Blue.”
    “You may pass.”

    A little science from the ID side please? Just a teensy-tiny bit? Pretty please?

  168. 168

    David Kellogg:
    Echidna asked for an ID explanation of where birds came from, which is a nonsensical question. It’s like asking me whose face is on a $-32.78 dollar bill.
    Don’t try making it my fault that you can’t answer the question.
    Any reasonable and neutral onlooker can see through your evasion.
    You’ve compared ID to evolution as if the latter is the gold standard of explanatory power. But, when put to the test, it offers no explanation. Like the little man behind the curtain, “Come back tomorrow!”
    I’m challenging that evolutionary theory cannot answer my question at all. If you know the answer but refuse to defend the theory, then why are you wasting your time on this forum? Just admit that evolutionary theory doesn’t explain evolution, and leave it at that.

  169. 169

    Don’t try making it my fault that you can’t answer the question.

    ID can’t answer any question. It takes any incomplete or partial answer as “I don’t know” = design!

  170. 170

    David Kellogg:

    ID can’t answer any question.

    Apparently neither can you. How and why did birds evolve?

  171. 171

    Upright

    It is patently not true that when we approach such irreducible systems (blood-clotting, the chemical vision cascade, flagella, etc), that “We can remove parts and the system will keep on working.”

    What you claim is not true, and can be dismissed as such.

    Is the Hagemann factor something that can be removed from the blood clotting system and have it work still?

    If we find a blood clotting system without that component does that prove the blood clotting system is not IC?

    Yes/No?

  172. 172

    ScottAndrews

    How and why did birds evolve?

    Rirds could have evolved. As it turned out in this universe, birds evolved instead.

    If the tape of evolution was rewound it’s unlikely things would play out in exactly the same way.

    Asking why birds evolved is aking to asking why a sandpile chose a particular moment to collapse.

  173. 173

    ScottAndrews

    Just admit that evolutionary theory doesn’t explain evolution, and leave it at that.

    Thanks for the laugh!

    Pick a paper

    http://scholar.google.com/scho.....tnG=Search

    Any paper. And tell me what they got wrong.

  174. Jehu:

    “Yes I have and abiogenesis is a bigger myth now than it ever has been. If, like Echidna-Levy and his flawless knowledge of bird evolution, you know how life began, I recommend you stop wasting time on this blog and immediately go publish in any of the most esteemed scientific journals.”

    Did someone say the research is complete? And do you know what a myth is?

    Gods of the Gaps are mythological creatures. Sane adults surely shouldn’t believe in such things. :)

  175. 175

    Echidna-Levy @170:
    You’re comparing evolution to collapsing sandpiles? What is this nonsense?
    Is that what evolutionary theory says? Who knows why it happened because it’s like a collapsing sandpile? Maybe I should rest my case right there.

  176. iconifid,

    “Ask your fellow I.D. supporter, herb, who thinks the Kentucky Flintstones museum provides scientific I.D. education. Do you agree or disagree?”

    Notice that I didn’t say I endorse all the information disseminated by the Creation Museum. My concern is that IDers like me who question common ancestry (e.g. Cornelius Hunter and Dr. Dembski) should not be asked to step to the back of the tent simply because we don’t tow the establishment line.

  177. 177

    Echidna-Levy:
    You claimed that you knew how and why birds evolved. So why did you send me link to a general search for “evolution?”
    You do not know how or why birds evolved. You do not know whether their modifications were effected by this mechanism or that one or both, or which selective pressures caused them to adapt.
    You’re evading, bluffing, and trying to shift the focus, but anyone can see through you.

  178. ScottAndrews:

    How and why did birds evolve?

    How? Variation, natural selection and drift. Why? Either “no reason” or “niche filling”, depending on what you mean.

    Scott, any evolutionary theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon of evolution. It should be in keeping with any knowledge of natural history, but it does not give you the details of natural history, although it can lead to discoveries.

    Finding out the details of bird evolution can only be done by studying birds (phenotype and genotype), fossils, and the nearest relatives of birds.

    Competing hypotheses like “birds from some theropods” and “birds and theropods from a common ancestor” can only be resolved by those studies, and increasing information.

    Evolutionary theory only predicts that birds have common ancestry with all other animals, that they evolved from other animals by variation, selection and drift, and that transitional forms should have existed.

  179. 179

    iconofid:
    Variation by what means? Selection by what criteria?
    I understand that these answers are in the distant past as part of natural history. (Yes, Echidna-Levy, I’m sure you knew that all along.)
    But all that leaves us with is that they evolved, somehow. We are left with no explanation of why a type of reptile, over millions of years, would become a bird.
    That is where evolutionary theory lacks explanatory power.

  180. ScottAndrews:

    Variation by what means? Selection by what criteria

    There are actually quite a few mechanisms of variation, but mainly mutation and recombination.

    Selection is just by individuals who function best in the environment having, on average, more influence over the future population than others. Differential reproduction.

    But I also mentioned niche filling, which is the nearest you get to “why” answers in a blind process.

  181. 181
    William J. Murray

    Levy,

    Do you understand that the main actor in your theory is chance? Chance creates, selection edits. Your entire belief that birds evolved begins with the claim that chance generated all of the necessary genetic information, and selection governed its implementation.

    Do you really think that a proper scientific theory relies on “chance” as its primary, creative explanatory mechanism? Further, do you believe that one should “believe” such a theory, or hold it valid, if it hasn’t even been demonstrated that there is sufficient chance in the entire universe for it to produce what it is claimed to produce?

    It might be proper to accept that it might be possible that RM & NS “could have” generated a bird, but to believe that it did so, without any description of point mutations, stepwise morphological integration of necessary tissues and codependent features as a function of natural selection pressures – by “description” I don’t mean a convenient story, but from hard genetic and environmental data – I don’t know how it is possible for a ration, neutrally skeptical person to accept it as a “fact” unless they are operating from ideology.

    There is surely no scientific reason to believe that birds evolved from any other ceature; there might be reason to suspect it could be so, but to believe it as a fact?

  182. 182

    “That is where evolutionary theory lacks explanatory power.”

    And the explanatory power of ID is . . . ?

  183. “That is where evolutionary theory lacks explanatory power.”

    And the explanatory power of ID is . . . ?

    Is that it identifies that something was designed. Who or what designed is different field, whether theology or panspermia or what have you.

    After all, I don’t know how crop circles are made but I know that they are designed. The argument that I must know how something was made before I can determine that it w as designed is illogical.

  184. 184

    Echidna,

    ——”Rirds could have evolved. As it turned out in this universe, birds evolved instead. If the tape of evolution was rewound it’s unlikely things would play out in exactly the same way. Asking why birds evolved is aking to asking why a sandpile chose a particular moment to collapse.”

    Yes, exactly, ;) nothing is anything in particular, and could have been otherwise, including us (the ones who are supposed to be able to make the judgments of other things), and including our thoughts, which means they have no relation to truth, anymore than a sandpile falling does. I’m glad you think you know things, even though the “truth” of your thoughts are not anything other than the equivalent to a sandpile falling, a material event, that could have been otherwise. The special pleading is obvious, why you think special pleading is okay, and that your system doesn’t defeat itself, is a different question.

  185. 185

    David Kellogg,

    ——”ID can’t answer any question. It takes any incomplete or partial answer as “I don’t know” = design!”

    Now you know this isn’t true David. At least, I hope you know that. ID is a conclusion of things known, not a conclusion without premises, like naturalism is.

  186. 186

    David Kellogg,

    ——”A little science from the ID side please? Just a teensy-tiny bit? Pretty please?”

    A little sense from the anti-ID side, please, pretty please, with a cherry on top?

  187. Clive Hayden:

    ….and including our thoughts, which means they have no relation to truth, anymore than a sandpile falling does..

    Don’t underestimate the quality of your thoughts, Clive. :)

    Actually, most of our thoughts relate reasonably well to reality, although there are exceptions, like the traditional way we have of making up supernatural explanations for things we don’t fully understand.

    However, the ability to discover things about our world is certainly advantageous, and we all descend from a long line of organisms who were more likely to survive the more accurate they were at figuring out local reality.

    Get beyond that, and it can often be counter-intuitive, but it’s because of general talents like observation, calculation, deduction and induction that we can slowly claw our way forward in understanding the world.

    These talents, along with the tendency to teach each other things, would have been advantageous to our ancestors, so I don’t think you should swallow that Alvin Plantinga stuff about naturalistic minds being useless.

    Evolved minds are not perfect, though, it’s accurate to say.

  188. 188

    iconfid:
    This is exactly the uncertainty I’m thinking of:

    There are actually quite a few mechanisms of variation, but mainly mutation and recombination.

    Was it mutation, recombinance, or a combination of the two? If we don’t know that, can we be certain that it was either? It’s not particularly scientific to point to a host of causes, none of which has been observed to effect macroevolutionary changes, and say that some of them did it. We’re not sure which ones, or how, but it’s in there somewhere. That’s not scientific.

  189. 189

    David Kellogg:

    And the explanatory power of ID is . . . ?

    I suspect you’re only feigning ignorance of ID. Either way, what point is your ignorance supposed to prove?
    After over a hundred years, evolutionary theory has nothing to show except ‘It evolved. We don’t know how or why, and we’re pretty light on any other specifics.’ Then it takes credit for scientific advances that didn’t require it.
    It’s one thing to be ignorant. No one knows everything. But it takes a remarkable person to wear it like a feather in his cap and show it off.

  190. 190

    Jehu

    After all, I don’t know how crop circles are made but I know that they are designed.

    How wonderful! Could I see ID in action then? You “know” they are designed, but can you “prove” they are designed?

    It has been repeated over and over in this thread alone that ID is science, and ID can detect design.

    Would it be possible for somebody here to run an example of the Explanatory Filter on a given crop circle?

    Furthermore, would it be possible for somebody here to put a value on the CSI or FSCI of a given crop circle?

    If ID has a methodology then can it please be applied to crop circles?

    Or has it been a bluff all along?

    I will be glad to pick a particular crop circle if required.

  191. 191

    Clive

    The special pleading is obvious, why you think special pleading is okay, and that your system doesn’t defeat itself, is a different question.

    Please go on, I’m interested to see where you are going with this.

  192. 192

    Echidna-Levy:
    Crop circles are like sandpiles. To ask where a crop circle came from is like asking why the sandpile collapsed when it did.

  193. Guys, is there mathematical model of evolution. If it is fact, then we should have mathematical model. Which means, we would have mathematical model of system able to produce protein synthesis schemas. It is amazing technology, why Does darwinists hide the papers of this magnitude? Let’s implement this process in computers, and tomorrow it should produce very meny nanoscale machines… or subsystems of unimaginable complexity – echolocator like bats, vision lik eagle, navigational systems like birds…

    Common stop wasting time describing facts, lets yoke the facts into mathematics, and computers and let the evolution produce something usefull for us!

    What about ID… well it is working allready, ID is everywhere, actually honestly I am using device explainable by ID to post this message, this device can’t be explained by evolution, but by ID – eazely!

    So…

  194. 194

    As I sign off, I’ll mention that after over twenty-four hours and more of the usual derisive tone, Echidna-Levy has yet to tell us which mechanisms or selective pressures resulted in bird evolution.
    If evolutionary theory doesn’t explain evolution, what does it explain?
    Don’t let the superior tone fool you – EL is speaking from a position of weakness.

  195. 190 Echidna-Levy

    Wait wait… ID has how much… 10-20 years in hostile environment, and you allready want design-detection device on your table. Whats wrong with one in your head? Have you better design-detection system for now?

    It is evolution which suppose to have 150 years of existence, and still haven’t producet a single usable and re-usable technology, nor even any mathematical model of evolution.

    ID has some mathematical formulas, refer to Dembsky…

    Again – special pledging – if ID can’t do or explain something in ten years where Evolutn can’t explain it in 150 years, then screw ID :) Why?

    Evolution had it’s time and chance… Now let other alternatives do their work, and ask the question in 150 years… I am sure you will get your DDS (Design Detection System)… Which by the way is very usefull technology if we plan send some SETI@Home like devices to seek for life and Intelligence in space.

    And yes… BTW – SETI@Home is ID at work… very specific, but actuall particular Design Detection System build as parallel computer… Very brief, cheap dirti and nuclear device, but wait… ID had only ten years to be.

    Well Evolution seems to be famous with 100% incorrect predictions… and flagman of them is Junk DNA :)

  196. ScottAndrews:

    This is exactly the uncertainty I’m thinking of:

    Was it mutation, recombinance, or a combination of the two? If we don’t know that, can we be certain that it was either? It’s not particularly scientific to point to a host of causes, none of which has been observed to effect macroevolutionary changes, and say that some of them did it. We’re not sure which ones, or how, but it’s in there somewhere. That’s not scientific.

    We can be pretty sure that mutation and recombination played a major role, because we can observe them changing the frequency of alleles in organisms that sexually reproduce. It’s constant.

    And science, remember, especially historical science, is meant to be tentative in principle, so it certainly is scientific.

    I know that creationists always make this big deal about “macroevolution”, because, by definition, it cannot be directly observed (or if it could be, it would just look like microevolution, so arguably it can be observed).

    But if I ask you to quantify how many mutations can become fixed across a population group, what would you say? What’s the limit?

    One thing about macroevolution, we have obvious recent ancestors for many animals in the fossil record, and in many cases it’s hard to distinguish whether we would consider the change between the two “macro” or “micro”.

    If someone expressed incredulity at naturalistic evolution by mutation and selection producing birds, I’d find it odd, as flight has occured a number of times, and we have examples of convergent intermediates in the gliding animals, including at least one insect and one reptile that can glide without wings, or half-wings.

    Flying, like swimming and walking, seems inevitable in this planet’s environment.

    However, you must agree with my main point; that the details of natural history are more a practical problem (more fossils needed, more and better understanding of molecular data, etc.) than a theoretical one.

    Natural history is a constant ongoing 4 dimensional jigsaw puzzle that our descendants will be working on for centuries. But I think that the debate over early bird evolution may be largely resolved over the next decade or two, because fossils of all creatures are coming up at an ever increasing rate.

  197. Shazard:

    Wait wait… ID has how much… 10-20 years in hostile environment, and you allready want design-detection device on your table…

    I.D. is ancient, under various names, and you could date the modern version from William Paley, 207 years ago, when, far from being in a hostile environment, it was the prevailing view.

    207 years, and we still don’t know who the designers are, making it impossible to tell what they design.

    They might like bare rocks, not messy life, so the extinction events of the past might be your best evidence for their presence and their attempts at “design”. :)

  198. iconofid,

    and who cares WHO is designer, if we are talking about design detection, not designer detection… That would be field of forenzics, which comes into play, when it is clear, that the event is not accident, but by-design…

    So do not mix different fields of science. ID does design detection, and formal methods of such are being investigated as we speak, now… mathematical models etc. Coz, nobody till today haven’t thought about design detection automation. Modern ID comes with this idea, and Seti@Home is one example of real implementation of such design detector… which as I sayed is very baby of what is really expceted and needed.

    And question of “Who designed it” and “Is the stuff designed” are very very different questions. The second one is formalisable and scientifically proovable, as ID claims. The first one question is… well… field of theology, forensics and some kind of cosmic antroplogy.

    Here is question?

    If I can’t find or proove identity of creator of my Car, does that prooves, that Car is not designed and result of chance and selection?

    Another question for you, would you like to have DDS when we will send probes into Space? Would such detector be good to have on board?

    And final question, can YOU detect design? How? What if identity of designer is beyond your reach?

  199. iconofid,

    and who cares WHO is designer, if we are talking about design detection, not designer detection… That would be field of forenzics, which comes into play, when it is clear, that the event is not accident, but by-design…

    My point was that we don’t know what unknown designers would or wouldn’t design.

    Here is question?

    If I can’t find or proove identity of creator of my Car, does that prooves, that Car is not designed and result of chance and selection

    But you know your car was designed by members of your own species, and you understand what it’s for, so of course you know it to be designed.

    What is a slug for? What is a blade of grass for? What are bacteria and cacti for?

    And final question, can YOU detect design? How? What if identity of designer is beyond your reach?

    I can detect design with reasonable accuracy if it’s by known creatures from within our biosphere.

    I have never detected design from creatures who are not one of earth’s life forms, so I cannot assess my ability to do this. Have you?

    If Seti detects a patterned message from an intelligent alien, then you can be absolutely sure that that alien will be dependent on the pre-existence of “FSCI”, just like all known intelligent designers.

    This is iconofid’s law!

  200. Sorry. Italicized quotes above from Shazard.

  201. Actually, most of our thoughts relate reasonably well to reality…

    That can’t even survive Descartes’ evil demon, which in turn has nothing on a mind constructed by random chance.

  202. 202

    I’ve decided to stop posting on this thread and this forum. It’s the nature of this type of “discussion” between entrenched positions to sometimes turn negative, bordering on hostile. I point a finger back at myself when I say that, but either way it’s something I shouldn’t engage in.
    I encourage those who know how to keep a discussion civil and constructive to do so, and not be swayed when lesser people try to hijack the debate for the amusement of provoking a reaction. As for the those, perhaps you serve some useful purpose in your real lives and this is just your ugly side, one of which we all have.
    Personally, I shouldn’t be taking time from other pursuits to engage in this, and I don’t feel good after arguing that much.
    I’m describing mostly myself, not this forum. I think UD is great, and I’ll continue to read it. But if I’m tempted to open my mouth I’ll have to ask Clive to ban me.
    (Sorry for interrupting this thread with my irrelevant personal statement.)

Leave a Reply