It makes me sad every time...

[ponder]

This evolution debate is really getting old. Evolution happens, get over it.

Was watching a thing on the dissection of a giraffe the other day and intelligent design failed horribly. There's a nerve running from it head to the bottom of it's neck and then all the way up again to it's voice box area. It serves zero function on that route and could have been the shortest path which would have been optimal. All animals have this nerve and it originates in fish where it follows a short curved path. Those dissecting it mentioned this as a good example of evolution and not intelligent design.

 

[Techne]

Was watching a thing on the dissection of a giraffe the other day and intelligent design failed horribly. There's a nerve running from it head to the bottom of it's neck and then all the way up again to it's voice box area. It serves zero function on that route and could have been the shortest path which would have been optimal. All animals have this nerve and it originates in fish where it follows a short curved path. Those dissecting it mentioned this as a good example of evolution and not intelligent design.

I saw that one too, the one with Dawkins. Problem is, good design or intelligent design or bad design cannot be empirically measured. There is no empirical way to quantify it. He is essentially giving his subjective opinion on what may be good or bad design, and because he is a scientist, many people might confuse his subjective, unscientific opinion about design as empirical fact. Also, just because something is an example of evolution does not imply it therefore cannot be an example of design and/or creation (design and creation are two different concepts btw).

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I fight for what is right. You will look to find something to dismiss everybody with a different belief than you. Your original contention were that they are 'nuts'. Now you try to show some supposed misconduct.

He lies in court, and admits it, yet you still claim it's "supposed misconduct". Okay Swa, I guess brother Behe can do no wrong.

You will look to find something to dismiss everybody with a different belief than you.

I already showed you this isn't true, but don't let that stop you.

I showed you that if that was the case there are plenty on your side who behave the same or worse. You can't seem to grasp this.

I already said I'm sure there are plenty, twice. I said so right there in the post you're responding to. Maybe learn to read properly?

Do you have a problem reading what it says? It's not just imperfect it's fatally flawed. There's plenty of evidence of it's flaws but no real evidence of its claimed merits. Funny you should suggest that because it's exactly what some have suggested. The quantum physicist Michael Nielsen said it is an ideal system for sharing knowledge only "if you're stuck with 17th-century technology."

Well, it actually significantly helped Einstein & Rosen with one of their works. I'm all for improving the system, don't get me wrong. There is obviously a lot that can be improved, too. This initiative seems to be making headway in this regard.

It hasn't. It's just gotten weaker as we get to know more. With every other science the gaps are slowly getting filled but in biology they just get wider and more questions arise. Again you're shifting the burden of proof and harping on its mythical strengths but never back them up yourself. Flippin' amazing.

Then why is it still taken seriously by the vast majority of scientists who work with this stuff every day, including the institutions they work at? For something so obviously wrong according to you, lots of scientists seem to be wasting their time, huh?

Nobody's talking about referring to the experts (which incidentally are divided). You however make an appeal to authority as though it can somehow prove something correct. You however seem bitter because despite this you want people to say you are right but you're unable to convince anybody.

Divided? According to work done by the Pew Research Center, 97% of scientists say life evolved over time, with 87% ascribing it to natural processes, and 8% saying it was guided by a supreme being. Project Steve also showed much the same.

I have no reason to be bitter as none of them are able to back up what they claim.

Yes, I'm sure this is all nonsense, as is this and this.

There's no arrogance in pointing out that the scientists working in the field have been unable to show anything for their effort. It seems the arrogance is actually from you: "Look at all these scientist, they have the qualifications so their opinion is correct." You are making the assumption that we can't examine the evidence for ourselves.

Nonsense. As I pointed in the bit you left out, those arguing against it have had access to the evidence for decades, and the best they've been able to come up with has been thoroughly unconvincing in the scientific world. So no, I do not "make the assumption that we can't examine the evidence for ourselves".

Yes I will accuse you of appealing to authority when it's so blatantly obvious that you're doing it. You keep assuming that if evolution was untrue it would have been falsified and completely ignore what we've been telling you that it's actually because you can make it fit practically any realistic scenario. It's NOT falsifiable. So let's do one for the money. You keep harping on the myth of peer-review and falsifiability as the "gold-standard" of something's accuracy and correctness. What you ignore is that every scientist worth their salt strives for utility as opposed to just filling books with useless knowledge that may be true. It's the correctness of a theory that determines its utility and the gold standard for correctness is actually how accurate we can use it to make predictions. The more predictions can accurately be made the more certain we can be that a theory is correct and the more failed it's predictions are the more doubt there should be about it's truth. So let's compare the number of true and false predictions.

Pointing out that the vast majority of scientists and experts working with the subject matter agree on the validity of the theory isn't appealing to authority. It's just the state of matters in the scientific community at the moment.

Not falsifiable you say? Turns out it is. Have a read here, and here.

Doesn't make good predictions you say? Turns out it does. Have a read here, here, and here. It also has utility.

Most of the stuff you bring up are dealt with here or here, including the tree of life misconception, "Junk DNA", and the fossil record. These also have actual scientific citations backing them, something that you've neglected to provide.

 

[Spizz]

I saw that one too, the one with Dawkins. Problem is, good design or intelligent design or bad design cannot be empirically measured. There is no empirical way to quantify it. He is essentially giving his subjective opinion on what may be good or bad design, and because he is a scientist, many people might confuse his subjective, unscientific opinion about design as empirical fact. Also, just because something is an example of evolution does not imply it therefore cannot be an example of design and/or creation (design and creation are two different concepts btw).

I also saw the documentary.

Otherwise, I've spent a couple of days now pondering exactly what the last few posts talk about, a viable alternative. Are we really saying that ID is just that? Or is there anything else that can be held up and scrutinised? And why the big scrutiny for evolution when the alternative requires even more of a stretch of the imagination?

So why the need to pick apart evolution when there is really nothing else to explain how we got to where we are now? Unless you have an agenda or a viable alternative of course.


As DrJZ says...

This evolution debate is really getting old. Evolution happens, get over it.

Until somebody comes up with a better way to explain things better than the theory of evolution does there is no point denying it.

Because it seems to me that there is a whole lot of time and energy being spent by a lot of people into trying to discredit it. But would that time and energy not be better of spent coming up with an alternative? And if that alternative involves a creator, so be it. Hold it up for scrutiny and lets go through it in the same way that the Theory of Evolution is being challenged.

 

[Techne]

There is no need for an alternative to the ToE. It does not address the issues of design and creation. It cannot argue for or against it. There just is no conflict since the ToE is silent on these logical/metaphysical/philosophical issues.

 

[Spizz]

There is no need for an alternative to the ToE. It does not address the issues of design and creation. It cannot argue for or against it. There just is no conflict since the ToE is silent on these logical/metaphysical/philosophical issues.

And I agree with you. However, others don't and I'd like them to put up their own answers and theories for scrutiny. A rough outline would do.

But of course they won't, because the alternative falls miserably at the first hurdle and everyone knows it.

 

[Swa]

He lies in court, and admits it, yet you still claim it's "supposed misconduct". Okay Swa, I guess brother Behe can do no wrong.



I already showed you this isn't true, but don't let that stop you.



I already said I'm sure there are plenty, twice. I said so right there in the post you're responding to. Maybe learn to read properly

And as I showed I can level the same criticisms to dismiss what you claim. The point you don't seem to get is that you belief one's stance and not the other based on implementing a standard that neither can achieve.

Well, it actually significantly helped Einstein & Rosen with one of their works. I'm all for improving the system, don't get me wrong. There is obviously a lot that can be improved, too. This initiative seems to be making headway in this regard.

It's debatable whether that was because of the review system rather than the critique itself. What seems to be forgotten is that peer-review was not a common requirement till the last half of the century and a lot of ground breaking work came before that. Einstein's own body of work consisted of over a hundred non-reviewed articles that became the basis of much of modern science. Something most of today's scientists can't match. What some have suggested is a system of open-review where peer-review is not taken as a measure of something's worth to be published and perhaps only a brief review is done to highlight issues where the author can then either correct them or continue to submit it for publication if confident in the material.

Then why is it still taken seriously by the vast majority of scientists who work with this stuff every day, including the institutions they work at? For something so obviously wrong according to you, lots of scientists seem to be wasting their time, huh?

This has been explained many times. Perhaps the real question to ask is why have there been so many so-called claims of proof for evolution and even outright frauds that advance its status but when those are shown for what they really are its status is never receded. That is very telling of it being an ideology. "Evidence" keeps piling up only as the preceding evidence degrades and turns to trash. Everyone agrees only that the evidence is there but they all disagree on what the evidence is.

Divided? According to work done by the Pew Research Center, 97% of scientists say life evolved over time, with 87% ascribing it to natural processes, and 8% saying it was guided by a supreme being. Project Steve also showed much the same.

97% is not the almost unanimous consensus we started with. For some reason the numbers are getting less just like they did with Ptolemaic physics, that should tell you something.

Nonsense. As I pointed in the bit you left out, those arguing against it have had access to the evidence for decades, and the best they've been able to come up with has been thoroughly unconvincing in the scientific world. So no, I do not "make the assumption that we can't examine the evidence for ourselves".

Unconvincing to whom exactly?

Pointing out that the vast majority of scientists and experts working with the subject matter agree on the validity of the theory isn't appealing to authority. It's just the state of matters in the scientific community at the moment.

WE KNOW IT ALREADY. There's no reason to keep pointing to it as that's just opinions. Continually harping on about it is appealing to authority.

Not falsifiable you say? Turns out it is. Have a read here, and here.

The fact remains that it never predicted fish would come before amphibians. Instead it adapted to what was found. If amphibians were found before fish it would say that instead of falsifying it. Anomalies have been found like the platypus yet the theory was adjusted to fit it in. Evolutionists have given us no reason not to believe that even a Precambrian rabbit can't be made to fit. Rest of the speculation of what a designer would or would not do is just special pleading.

Doesn't make good predictions you say? Turns out it does. Have a read here, here, and here. It also has utility.

Lots of falsehoods and exaggerations. Darwin's prediction that the gaps in the fossil record would be filled has failed. The peppered moth example has been shown as a fraud. Richard Alexander didn't predict eusociality in burrowing rodents in the tropics but in a vertebrate. The second and third is obviously so flawed, seems you didn't read the comments.

Astrology also claims correct "predictions" among a vast array of incorrect ones. I can predict the rolls on a roulette wheel but if my predictions are not accurate more than 1 out of 37 times I can't claim them to be any more than guesses. Has anybody taken a look at the statistical significance of the number of correct predictions among the large number of incorrect ones? It's easy to see evidence confirming of something but ignore the contradictions. It's called confirmation bias.

It also has utility.

Prof. Philip Skell sets the record straight. More than that evolution's incorrect predictions have been used to justify dangerous unnecessary operations like tonsillectomies.

Most of the stuff you bring up are dealt with here or here

Yeah a whole long list of irrelevant stuff again from? Talkorigins. And your second link again lists... tada the peppered moth.

, including the tree of life misconception

Irrelevant. It does not deal with the fact that the tree of life was never predicted but instead inferred.

, "Junk DNA",

Darwinism trying to rewrite history again. The original contention was that most DNA is functionless. This only deals with the fact that after the evidence mounted up to contradict this it was changed to some DNA being functionless. Another prediction now shattered by the ENCODE results showing biochemical function alone in at least 80% of the genome.

, and the fossil record

Does not deal with the fact that Darwin predicted the gaps in the fossil record would be filled to show a gradual progression. Again it was changed after this prediction failed.

These also have actual scientific citations backing them, something that you've neglected to provide.

Seems you have a hangup with things that do not actually improve the strength of your argument. Citations are used when quoting or paraphrasing ideas or opinions of someone specific (actually this has more to do with plagiarising), referencing statistics or data gathered, using someone else's work as a framework and making reference to key assertions. Not for common knowledge or original ideas, opinions, interpretations or conclusions. http://www.library.american.edu/tutorial/citation3.html Incidentally referencing other articles is providing citations so your assertion is false.

Yes they have citations but they are worthless if they misrepresent the predictions and come to conclusions that have nothing to do with them. You still don't have an answer to the false major predictions of evolution like the pattern of the fossil record, abrupt appearance of complex life, "junk" DNA, gradual change, mutations being random. Yet a "non-theory" according to you was able to predict all these correctly. Even your referenced TO article uses horizontal gene transfer. Again common ancestry is assumed there but HGT was an unexpected find. In contrast it was not for creation as it's expected that different genes will be used among a different array of organisms which would look like HGT if viewed from a common ancestry perspective.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

And as I showed I can level the same criticisms to dismiss what you claim. The point you don't seem to get is that you belief one's stance and not the other based on implementing a standard that neither can achieve.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

This has been explained many times. Perhaps the real question to ask is why have there been so many so-called claims of proof for evolution and even outright frauds that advance its status but when those are shown for what they really are its status is never receded. That is very telling of it being an ideology. "Evidence" keeps piling up only as the preceding evidence degrades and turns to trash. Everyone agrees only that the evidence is there but they all disagree on what the evidence is.

Or maybe it's because scientists the world over, who have had access to the evidence, have found the theory to be worthwhile? Why is this such an impossible situation for you? What secret stash of knowledge do you have access to that Kenneth Miller and Stephen Jay Gould (not to mention the legions of other scientists who worked with it daily), doesn't?

97% is not the almost unanimous consensus we started with. For some reason the numbers are getting less just like they did with Ptolemaic physics, that should tell you something.

I guess I could point out the catastrophic failure of the so-called "Scientific dissent from Darwinism".

Unconvincing to whom exactly?

The above mentioned 97% of scientists, apparently.

The fact remains that it never predicted fish would come before amphibians.

Turns out it did. More here.

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

Rest of the speculation of what a designer would or would not do is just special pleading.

Sounds like Intelligent Design.

Lots of falsehoods and exaggerations. Darwin's prediction that the gaps in the fossil record would be filled has failed.

"Revolution Against Evolution: Answering the tough questions concerning science and the Bible." lol.

Yeah, who'd have thunk that science would have progressed since Darwin's time?

The peppered moth example has been shown as a fraud. Richard Alexander didn't predict eusociality in burrowing rodents in the tropics but in a vertebrate. The second and third is obviously so flawed, seems you didn't read the comments.

Uhm, rodents are vertebrates. He predicted, by way of a hypothetical model, a eusocial vertebrate. Turned out to be a near perfect representation of the naked mole rat.

As for the peppered moths, it seems Jonathan Wells and Judith Hooper are largely responsible for the inaccuracies and misrepresentations being spread around. Have a read here, and here.

Prof. Philip Skell sets the record straight. More than that evolution's incorrect predictions have been used to justify dangerous unnecessary operations like tonsillectomies.

What about using evolution biology to understand medical microbial ecology, or the rest of its uses in medicine?

Yeah a whole long list of irrelevant stuff again from? Talkorigins. And your second link again lists... tada the peppered moth.

Irrelevant stuff? Funny, seeing as though these arguments seem to be trotted out over and over.

Irrelevant. It does not deal with the fact that the tree of life was never predicted but instead inferred.

The limitations of the phylogenetic tree has been known about for a long time.

Darwinism trying to rewrite history again. The original contention was that most DNA is functionless. This only deals with the fact that after the evidence mounted up to contradict this it was changed to some DNA being functionless. Another prediction now shattered by the ENCODE results showing biochemical function alone in at least 80% of the genome.

No, it actually wasn't. The term was coined in the 70's, and since then scientists have been disputing the terminology, what's meant by "junk", and what would determine 'function'. Non-coding RNA never meant it's completely useless, just that they aren't translated into proteins.This guy has a nice collection of articles on the subject.

He also takes a different view on the ENCODE results.

Does not deal with the fact that Darwin predicted the gaps in the fossil record would be filled to show a gradual progression. Again it was changed after this prediction failed.

Science has moved on since Darwin. He didn't know anything about genetics, either. He also took a slightly more careful approach than you claim.

More here: Punctuated equilibrium vs. Phyletic gradualism.

 

[Techne]

To me it just means purpose, that something is done with intention or with a result in mind. Which then implies intelligent design.

I think it is probably better to differentiate between creation, design and teleology.
1) When something begins to exist from nothingness then it is an example of creation.
2) When something is the result of a plan conceived in a mind, then it is design.
3) Teleology, in its simplest form, is the idea that every agent acts towards an end. Perhaps an example could help. E.g. electrons. Simply put, the natural ends of electrons are;
1) The generation of an electric field.
2) The generation of an electrostatic potential.
3) The generation of a magnetic field.
4) The generation of a vector potential.

What happens with two interacting electrons is that each electron generates an electric field (among other natural ends). These fields interact and generate a force. This force results in the movement of the electrons away from each other. The electrons, interacting electric fields and forces all have natural ends and these include the generation of electric field, generation of force and generation of movement respectively. So, even electrons act towards an end.

One way to differentiate between creation, design and teleology is to think of a universe where these concepts are true and false.

For example, I can think of a universe where there is only creation without design and teleology. In this universe, things will begin to exist from nothing, without it being the product of a mind and does not act towards any end.

I can also think of a universe where design and creation is false but teleology is true. I.e., nothing is created (there is only change) and nothing is the product of any mind but everything acts towards an end.

There are at least 8 possible universes by differentiating between creation, design and teleology.
1) D
2) T
3) C
4) DC
5) TC
6) TD
7) CDT
8) No CDT

The human mind has adapted to find patterns in chaos as is evident from countless sources such as research on data manipulation, market research, optical illusions, scientific studies and my observing the mention of it in random documentaries every now and then. When we look at data this "trap" is all too easy to fall into.

I am not trying to say there is absolutely no cause or reason to believe creation exists, I am only suggesting that I personally feel it isn't necessary. Furthermore I wonder if it doesn't inhibit our understanding with respect to many things, not only evolution. That is the overall point I am trying to make

Empirical science (as understood today) is not concerned with creation or design or teleology. These are concepts that are handled by philosophy of nature. Empirical science does not discount or make these concepts unnecessary, it is simply silent on these issues. I suppose the necessity of these concepts depends on a persons metaphysical outlook on reality.

 

[Swa]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

That was already apparent. What I'm saying is that you're looking at someones conduct to dismiss their argument. Granted there are situations where it's valid but for the most part we can find something we don't agree with in any professional person's life. That is a type of ad-hominem attack and indicative of bias.

Or maybe it's because scientists the world over, who have had access to the evidence, have found the theory to be worthwhile? Why is this such an impossible situation for you? What secret stash of knowledge do you have access to that Kenneth Miller and Stephen Jay Gould (not to mention the legions of other scientists who worked with it daily), doesn't?

I never claimed they don't. People find things worthwhile for any number of reasons, not necessarily because of the facts. You still seem to think that facts speak for themselves while it's been pointed out many times that they need to be interpreted and interpretations are influenced by existing world views.

According to stats 41% of scientists don't believe in any higher power and only a third in God specifically. So that's already 41% that have a preconceived belief in natural origins. 18% believe in a higher power and 8% appears to be undecided (agnostic). Only a third have reason to consider a non-natural origin.

I guess I could point out the catastrophic failure of the so-called "Scientific dissent from Darwinism".

No need I'm doing my own analysis thanks.

Turns out it did. More here.

I read until I came to this garbage "ID proponents know nothing of predictions, because ID does not make predictions" which I just showed is patently false. So you have a poor quality dead fish. It still placed fish before amphibians based on the fossil record so no prediction.

"Revolution Against Evolution: Answering the tough questions concerning science and the Bible." lol.

Yeah, who'd have thunk that science would have progressed since Darwin's time?

You make my point. Science proved Darwin's prediction wrong.

Uhm, rodents are vertebrates. He predicted, by way of a hypothetical model, a eusocial vertebrate. Turned out to be a near perfect representation of the naked mole rat.

Alexander argued that the eusociality of insects like bees or wasps was due to their extreme parental behavior. Others pointed out that birds and mammals are very parental as well yet don't live in hives. So instead he devised that the explanation was more structural and described four characteristics of such a eusocial vertebrate if it existed based on the general characteristics of termite nests. The rest of the criteria were based on what these four limitations would allow and it was mentioned that incidentally a rodent would fit it perfectly. I don't see how you can drag it in as evolution predicting it's existence.

As for the peppered moths, it seems Jonathan Wells and Judith Hooper are largely responsible for the inaccuracies and misrepresentations being spread around. Have a read here, and here.

Straw man. The charge is not based on the data. Kettlewell noticed that more moths were darker in color. He postulated that it was because birds were predating on the lighter ones and that this was natural selection in action. He conjectured that this was because of trees becoming darker in color. The fraudulent nature of his photographs came to light because of their peculiarity. It would be nearly impossible to find moths so side by side naturally. The fact that he had staged the photos and pinned dead moths to tree trunks were revealed by experts on moths that noticed their wings were extended which would not have been true of live resting moths. The moths also actually seem to prefer resting higher up in trees where their coloration would not be such an issue. This led to the questioning of the actual experiments as well. Kettlewell is responsible for using a staged example of natural selection.

What about using evolution biology to understand medical microbial ecology, or the rest of its uses in medicine?

And again nobody can show where evolution has offered any guidance. The retcon is to always bring it in and change or augment it after a discovery is made and then claim "ah evolution explains it." But before a breakthrough discovery evolution is conspicuously absent in explaining anything.

Irrelevant stuff? Funny, seeing as though these arguments seem to be trotted out over and over.

Yet you can't link to anything specific and only a long list you probably didn't even check to see if any of it is there.

The limitations of the phylogenetic tree has been known about for a long time.

That's irrelevant. Evolution never predicted it but inferred it where creationism predicted this limitation. Instead the prediction it did make that different fields would confirm one another failed and the creationist prediction that they would not came true.

No, it actually wasn't. The term was coined in the 70's, and since then scientists have been disputing the terminology, what's meant by "junk", and what would determine 'function'. Non-coding RNA never meant it's completely useless, just that they aren't translated into proteins.This guy has a nice collection of articles on the subject.

The contention just after the discovery of DNA was that most of it would be useless. The term junk DNA was only coined after geneticists were already discovering a use for some of this non-coding DNA. It was originally used to refer to non-coding but functional DNA. I already showed this in a discussion with Techne. It then became a popular term to refer to DNA that still had no identified purpose. To use it now to try and show that a large amount of DNA was never thought to be useless is an attempt to rewrite history. Even relatively recently it was still used this way: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/will_darwinists_try_to_pull_a003776.html

He also takes a different view on the ENCODE results.

The quotes still maintain the 80% as accurate. The 20% is for a very narrow definition of function which Ryan Gregory seems to WANT to use. He's doing exactly what he's accusing his critics of doing. Nothing new in fact. Best of all is the end quote. So it's junk but it can have a function? Seems like backwards thinking. Anything that's junk doesn't have function and anything with function isn't junk.

Science has moved on since Darwin. He didn't know anything about genetics, either. He also took a slightly more careful approach than you claim.

More here: Punctuated equilibrium vs. Phyletic gradualism.

Another straw man. Darwin was only illustrating that transitional fossils will not be a dominant feature not that they would be non-existent. He still wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." Darwin's only defense was an imperfect at the time fossil record (only a few specimens of each species had been found) based on an assumption that his theory was true. He firmly predicted this to be due to a lack of research which has since been debunked. Eldredge and Tattersall further state: "The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong." The funny thing is creation makes this prediction about the fossil record and it makes it correctly.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

What I'm saying is that you're looking at someones conduct to dismiss their argument.

No, I'm not. Their arguments are dismissed because it's misleading, misrepresentative and poorly constructed. Their conduct is a separate issue.

I never claimed they don't. People find things worthwhile for any number of reasons, not necessarily because of the facts. You still seem to think that facts speak for themselves while it's been pointed out many times that they need to be interpreted and interpretations are influenced by existing world views.

So to what extent do you think the existing world views of ID-proponents influence their arguments and positions? Considering nearly everyone in any way involved with this (including you) seems to be Christians, do you think this is a coincidence?

According to stats 41% of scientists don't believe in any higher power and only a third in God specifically. So that's already 41% that have a preconceived belief in natural origins. 18% believe in a higher power and 8% appears to be undecided (agnostic). Only a third have reason to consider a non-natural origin.

Empirical science cannot interpret 'supernatural origins', whatever that is. So how do you propose they go to work? Whenever they hit a snag just give up and say "LOL I Guess God did it!"?

I read until I came to this garbage "ID proponents know nothing of predictions, because ID does not make predictions" which I just showed is patently false.

Where? What predictions does ID make?

So you have a poor quality dead fish.

Seems that's just Casey Luskin making a fool of himself again. More here, here and here.

It still placed fish before amphibians based on the fossil record so no prediction.

Uhm, you said, and I quote "The fact remains that it never predicted fish would come before amphibians."

You make my point. Science proved Darwin's prediction wrong.

Yeah, Darwin didn't know everything. Big shock.

Alexander argued that the eusociality of insects like bees or wasps was due to their extreme parental behavior. Others pointed out that birds and mammals are very parental as well yet don't live in hives. So instead he devised that the explanation was more structural and described four characteristics of such a eusocial vertebrate if it existed based on the general characteristics of termite nests. The rest of the criteria were based on what these four limitations would allow and it was mentioned that incidentally a rodent would fit it perfectly. I don't see how you can drag it in as evolution predicting it's existence.

Because no one knew the naked molerat was eusocial until he predicted that it made evolutionary sense for such an animal to fit the criteria.

Straw man. The charge is not based on the data. Kettlewell noticed that more moths were darker in color. He postulated that it was because birds were predating on the lighter ones and that this was natural selection in action. He conjectured that this was because of trees becoming darker in color. The fraudulent nature of his photographs came to light because of their peculiarity. It would be nearly impossible to find moths so side by side naturally. The fact that he had staged the photos and pinned dead moths to tree trunks were revealed by experts on moths that noticed their wings were extended which would not have been true of live resting moths. The moths also actually seem to prefer resting higher up in trees where their coloration would not be such an issue. This led to the questioning of the actual experiments as well. Kettlewell is responsible for using a staged example of natural selection.

So your problem is with the photographs? :wtf: The data derived from the actual experiments is what's important. Michael Majerus, one of the initial critics of the experiments reran them in a seven-year project and affirmed Kettlewell's work.

And again nobody can show where evolution has offered any guidance. The retcon is to always bring it in and change or augment it after a discovery is made and then claim "ah evolution explains it." But before a breakthrough discovery evolution is conspicuously absent in explaining anything.

So helping our understanding of antibiotic resistance, pathogen virulence and pathogen subversion of the immune system isn't helpful? You could read the work done by experts.

That's irrelevant. Evolution never predicted it but inferred it where creationism predicted this limitation. Instead the prediction it did make that different fields would confirm one another failed and the creationist prediction that they would not came true.

How is it irrelevant? The scientists who developed it also knew about the limitations. What different fields?

Creationism predicted it? Would this be in the same league as those predictions that the eye or bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex? Tell me, what other predictions does creationism make? How about predictions that stand on its own, instead of being built on imaginary problems with evolutionary theory?

The contention just after the discovery of DNA was that most of it would be useless. The term junk DNA was only coined after geneticists were already discovering a use for some of this non-coding DNA. It was originally used to refer to non-coding but functional DNA. I already showed this in a discussion with Techne. It then became a popular term to refer to DNA that still had no identified purpose. To use it now to try and show that a large amount of DNA was never thought to be useless is an attempt to rewrite history. Even relatively recently it was still used this way: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/will_darwinists_try_to_pull_a003776.html

Oh dear, seems Casey Luskin's been making an ass of himself, again.

 

[porchrat]

Where? What predictions does ID make?

Anybody can make predictions. Tarot card readers make predictions.

What is really important is the question "upon what evidence do any of them base these their predictions?".

For example where is the base standard upon which 'designeyness' is determined and how was this standard determined?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Anybody can make predictions. Tarot card readers make predictions.

What is really important is the question "upon what evidence do any of them base these their predictions?".

For example where is the base standard upon which 'designeyness' is determined and how was this standard determined?

Can't you read, porchrat? Everyone that thinks the evidence points to evolution is doing it wrong.

 

[Techne]

The contention just after the discovery of DNA was that most of it would be useless. The term junk DNA was only coined after geneticists were already discovering a use for some of this non-coding DNA. It was originally used to refer to non-coding but functional DNA. I already showed this in a discussion with Techne. It then became a popular term to refer to DNA that still had no identified purpose. To use it now to try and show that a large amount of DNA was never thought to be useless is an attempt to rewrite history. Even relatively recently it was still used this way: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/will_darwinists_try_to_pull_a003776.html

The term "junk DNA" merely applies to DNA that is a provisionally labelled for sequences of DNA for which no function has been identified. It is simply unscientific to imply that junk DNA is actually functionless junk.

 

[Swa]

No, I'm not. Their arguments are dismissed because it's misleading, misrepresentative and poorly constructed. Their conduct is a separate issue.

Again by who's standards? Obviously you haven't really looked at the arguments for evolution.

So to what extent do you think the existing world views of ID-proponents influence their arguments and positions? Considering nearly everyone in any way involved with this (including you) seems to be Christians, do you think this is a coincidence?

This argument can equally be turned around.

Empirical science cannot interpret 'supernatural origins', whatever that is. So how do you propose they go to work? Whenever they hit a snag just give up and say "LOL I Guess God did it!"?

What do you see as empirical science? Evolution is not an empirical science so you're already giving way to metaphysical assumptions. Currently they aren't doing much different by just saying "well we guess it was just chance" but that is beside the point I was making.

Where? What predictions does ID make?

I showed you.

Seems that's just Casey Luskin making a fool of himself again. More here, here and here.

Nonsense. PvM's (P.V. Meyers?) contention here is that evolutionists have always been honest about Tik's significance but fails to point this out. The articles he cite that can be verified are either just before Luskin's article or as with one even after it. That confirms what Luskin was saying about these admissions only being made recently. He cites one forum discussion as further support but following from here there is actually an admission that the fossil has been overhyped. One cited article from the Seattle Times actually shows this hype and is dated 2006, before any of these frank admissions were made. Nice misrepresentations of the arguments in the next three articles as well.

Uhm, you said, and I quote "The fact remains that it never predicted fish would come before amphibians."

It never did. It inferred it from the fossil record which was already known at the time. I don't see why you would be confused that this was not a prediction.

Because no one knew the naked molerat was eusocial until he predicted that it made evolutionary sense for such an animal to fit the criteria.

His only "prediction" was what it would make sense that evolution would produce such an eusocial vertebrate. It was an inference from his presupposition that if it exists it's the result of evolution. There's nothing to stop a creationist zoologist from inferring that if it exists it was created. That's the part you seem to be missing that neither would have predicted it. I give him credit for predicting the characteristics required based on comparison with termite nests (not evolutionary prediction) but its existence was a guess.

So your problem is with the photographs? :wtf: The data derived from the actual experiments is what's important. Michael Majerus, one of the initial critics of the experiments reran them in a seven-year project and affirmed Kettlewell's work.

The issue has always been with the photos and how they are reproduced in text books as confirmation of the mechanism for moth selection. Few will dispute the data but as the majority of moths don't rest on tree trunks it's doubtful that this is the main mechanism. Indeed if it was the question would be why aren't the ones resting on tree trunks selected against?

So helping our understanding of antibiotic resistance, pathogen virulence and pathogen subversion of the immune system isn't helpful? You could read the work done by experts.

Yes indeed the work done by experts confirm it isn't helpful. It's our understanding of how these things work determined through experiment and investigation and not their speculative origins that's of value. These independent discoveries are then always used AFTER the fact to supplement evolution but evolution never predicts any of them.

How is it irrelevant? The scientists who developed it also knew about the limitations. What different fields?

Creationism predicted it? Would this be in the same league as those predictions that the eye or bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex? Tell me, what other predictions does creationism make? How about predictions that stand on its own, instead of being built on imaginary problems with evolutionary theory?

They only knew about it AFTER discovering it. Evolutionists actually expected that different fields (fossils, morphology, genetics (different branches of genetics)) would confirm the same evolutionary tree. Incidentally creationists correctly predicted it would give different and inconsistent ones.

Oh dear, seems Casey Luskin's been making an ass of himself, again.

And PvM is making a real ass of himself doing the very history rewriting Luskin was describing.

Read what Dawkins said not even 3 years ago: "Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes."

He's explicitly not referring to pseudogenes. So even recently Dawkins is a good example of how the majority of DNA is claimed to be useless. This statement can't be misinterpreted. He's making it abundantly clear that 95% of the genome is useless as a matter of fact. There can't be any sidestepping it. He's clearly stating that leaving it out will make virtually no difference so he can only be claiming it has no function AT ALL.

 

[Techne]

According to stats 41% of scientists don't believe in any higher power and only a third in God specifically. So that's already 41% that have a preconceived belief in natural origins. 18% believe in a higher power and 8% appears to be undecided (agnostic). Only a third have reason to consider a non-natural origin.

Only 17% of religiously unaffiliated scientists say they are atheists (according to that research) Surprising, I though it would be more. Carl Sagan once said:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

Empirical science cannot interpret 'supernatural origins', whatever that is. So how do you propose they go to work? Whenever they hit a snag just give up and say "LOL I Guess God did it!"?

Or they just don't limit themselves to only empirical science for answers as some answers cannot be determined via empirical science. Those that can be answered will obviously be pursued like any good scientist does, whether yu are religious or not.

 

[Swa]

Only 17% of religiously unaffiliated scientists say they are atheists (according to that research) Surprising, I though it would be more. Carl Sagan once said:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

I've always taken atheist to mean that a person thinks there is no god(s) but not with an absolute certainty. Agnostic then being the belief that this knowledge is unattainable either way but that no god(s) are required. It thus seems 24% can be described as agnostic.

I have seen figures before claiming over 90% when it comes to biology specifically with it climbing to over 95% in evolutionary biology. I don't know the accuracy of these figures though but even with a large margin of error it would seem to affirm that what someone is willing to accept is largely based on what fits into their world view.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Again by who's standards? Obviously you haven't really looked at the arguments for evolution.

By the standards of the vast majority of scientists working the field. Obviously you haven't really looked at the arguments for Intelligent Design.

What do you see as empirical science? Evolution is not an empirical science so you're already giving way to metaphysical assumptions. Currently they aren't doing much different by just saying "well we guess it was just chance" but that is beside the point I was making.

It should be based on observation and experiment, which evolution is. Metaphysical assumptions? Sounds exactly like ID. They aren't saying it was just chance, so that's a strawman.

What was the point you were making then? That they shouldn't consider natural origins?

I showed you.

Where?

Nonsense. PvM's (P.V. Meyers?) contention here is that evolutionists have always been honest about Tik's significance but fails to point this out. The articles he cite that can be verified are either just before Luskin's article or as with one even after it. That confirms what Luskin was saying about these admissions only being made recently. He cites one forum discussion as further support but following from here there is actually an admission that the fossil has been overhyped. One cited article from the Seattle Times actually shows this hype and is dated 2006, before any of these frank admissions were made. Nice misrepresentations of the arguments in the next three articles as well.

Luskin misrepresented Boisvert's and Ahlberg's statements. Have you seen how Ahlberg responded in that thread? Read the thread from the start. Luskin misrepresented Boisvert, Ahlberg and Coates. Seems Luskin has a history of doing this.

With regards to the fossil being overhyped, it's unfortunate. Ahlberg says about that:

...in the case of Tiktaalik I do feel that the authors have not always been careful enough to ensure that the animal was placed in its proper context by news reporters. By allowing it to be portrayed as a unique missing link devoid of context, standing all alone in the beam of the spotlight as it were, they have inadvertently obscured some of its real significance. Note, however, that I am speaking here of popular media reports written by others, not the actual scientific papers by the discoverers.

It never did. It inferred it from the fossil record which was already known at the time. I don't see why you would be confused that this was not a prediction.

They predicted that it would fall in the Devonian period to fit the morphology from fish to amphibian, and it did. That's usually how they make these predictions you know, based on evidence already acquired.

His only "prediction" was what it would make sense that evolution would produce such an eusocial vertebrate. It was an inference from his presupposition that if it exists it's the result of evolution. There's nothing to stop a creationist zoologist from inferring that if it exists it was created. That's the part you seem to be missing that neither would have predicted it. I give him credit for predicting the characteristics required based on comparison with termite nests (not evolutionary prediction) but its existence was a guess.

How is that not a prediction? They didn't know about it, but it fit the evidence, and they found it. Prediction successful.

The issue has always been with the photos and how they are reproduced in text books as confirmation of the mechanism for moth selection. Few will dispute the data but as the majority of moths don't rest on tree trunks it's doubtful that this is the main mechanism. Indeed if it was the question would be why aren't the ones resting on tree trunks selected against?

Uhm, no.

"Michael Majerus in his 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action questioned the methodology of Bernard Kettlewell's classic experiments, matching a similar 1998 analysis by Sargent et al."

"[Jonathan] Wells wrote an essay on the subject, a shortened version of which appeared in The Scientist of 24 May 1999, claiming that "In 25 years of fieldwork, C.A. Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered moth on a tree trunk", and concluding that "The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments"."

"In 2000 Wells wrote Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we Teach About Evolution is Wrong, which claims "What the textbooks don't explain, however, is that biologists have known since the 1980s that the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged."[34] The arguments put by Wells have been dismissed by Majerus, Cook and peppered moth researcher Bruce Grant who describes Wells as distorting the picture by selectively omitting or scrambling references in a way that is dishonest."

"Professional photography to illustrate textbooks uses dead insects because of the considerable difficulty in getting good images of small, relatively fast moving animals. The scientific studies actually consisted of observational data rather than using such photographs. The photographs in Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action are unstaged pictures of live moths in the wild, and the photographs of moths on tree-trunks, apart from some slight blurring, look no different than the "staged" photographs."

"In 2002, Judith Hooper's Of Moths and Men added to the accusations of scientific fraud. She accused Kettlewell of manipulating his data to prove his hypothesis.[38] The book received strong criticism from the scientific press (e.g., Coyne, B.C. Clarke, Grant).[39][40] Majerus described it as "littered with errors, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and falsehoods"."

And this was followed by Majerus re-doing the experiments, confirming the initial work done by Kettlewell.

Yes indeed the work done by experts confirm it isn't helpful. It's our understanding of how these things work determined through experiment and investigation and not their speculative origins that's of value. These independent discoveries are then always used AFTER the fact to supplement evolution but evolution never predicts any of them.

The experiment and investigation done by the researchers showed how the bacteria evolved a new type of gene that gives it resistance to certain antibiotics. They needed to understand how it evolved in order to find a way to disrupt it so that antibiotics can work against them. How is this not helpful?

They only knew about it AFTER discovering it. Evolutionists actually expected that different fields (fossils, morphology, genetics (different branches of genetics)) would confirm the same evolutionary tree. Incidentally creationists correctly predicted it would give different and inconsistent ones.

[citation needed]

Let me just ask again:

What other predictions does creationism make? How about predictions that stand on its own, instead of being built on imaginary problems with evolutionary theory?

And PvM is making a real ass of himself doing the very history rewriting Luskin was describing.

Read what Dawkins said not even 3 years ago: "Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes."

He's explicitly not referring to pseudogenes. So even recently Dawkins is a good example of how the majority of DNA is claimed to be useless. This statement can't be misinterpreted. He's making it abundantly clear that 95% of the genome is useless as a matter of fact. There can't be any sidestepping it. He's clearly stating that leaving it out will make virtually no difference so he can only be claiming it has no function AT ALL.

That's not the whole quote.

Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 per cent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes. The neutral theory applies even to many of the genes in the remaining 5 per cent - the genes that are read and used. I must be clear here. We are not saying that a gene to which the neutral theory applies has no effect on the body. What we are saying is that a mutant version of the gene has exactly the same effect as the unmutated version. However important or unimportant the gene itself may be, the mutated version has the same effect as the unmutated version. Unlike pesudogenes, where the gene itself can properly be described as neutral, we are now talking about cases where it is only mutations (i.e. changes in genes) that can strictly be described as neutral, not genes themselves.

In any case, I said in the first post about Junk DNA that there wasn't consensus on it being "useless". The regulatory effects have been known about for a very long time. And if Dawkins is wrong? So what? Then he's wrong. Simple as that.

 

[Swa]

By the standards of the vast majority of scientists working the field. Obviously you haven't really looked at the arguments for Intelligent Design.

I have and by all accounts they appear to be more substantive than the "it happened due to a number of happy accidents" line. Here's more on that mythical unbiased thinking ability you're assuming people base their standards on http://www.livescience.com/5508-people-unsure-beliefs-close-minded.html

It should come as no surprise that the same arguments you are making here were made in defense of the Ptolemaic theory yet in many aspects its shortcomings resemble those of evolution to a tee. What is different then that makes you so certain that the vast majority are right this time where they have been wrong on numerous occasions in the past?

It should be based on observation and experiment, which evolution is. Metaphysical assumptions? Sounds exactly like ID. They aren't saying it was just chance, so that's a strawman.

What was the point you were making then? That they shouldn't consider natural origins?

There is no observation and experiment that can be applied to the past. Evolution is all inferences. Chance is the only explanation we are ever offered: "no you're wrong it could have been chance mutations so there's no need to consider that an intelligence might have been involved." Are you then saying that it wasn't chance? THAT sounds like ID. Otherwise you have to stick to it being chance.

The point was that a large percentage of scientists (41) have no reason to accept anything but a natural origin. You try to dodge this by claiming that nearly everyone involved with it (ID, Creationism) seems to be Christian. Despite that this is fallacious reasoning (America is not a representation of the world, it just hogs most of the media) and that there are actually people of multiple religious affiliations involved it actually doesn't have the implication you think it does. It just shows that we can accept multiple explanations while atheists are the ones that can only acknowledge one.

Where?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...d-every-time?p=9712484&viewfull=1#post9712484

Luskin misrepresented Boisvert's and Ahlberg's statements. Have you seen how Ahlberg responded in that thread? Read the thread from the start. Luskin misrepresented Boisvert, Ahlberg and Coates. Seems Luskin has a history of doing this.

With regards to the fossil being overhyped, it's unfortunate. Ahlberg says about that:

The mistake to refer to it as Boisvert's statement rather than the journal's was rectified as you can see and was not an intentional misrepresentation. As for Coates and Ahlberg they did make those statements. Ahlberg only clarified what he meant by a "step backwards" in that thread where he also acknowledges that it was perhaps a simplification. But of course in your mind whenever there's a lack of clarity it must be the fault of the creationist and not the evolution scientist. You are nitpicking over minor details, as is PvM, and in effect misrepresenting Luskin's main points that incidentally Ahlberg acknowledged. So you're doing exactly what you're accusing him of doing.

Also how is this for a "quote-mine," you conveniently highlight the last part of the sentence when he also says "there is always a temptation for the scientists to boost the profile of their particular find, and in the case of Tiktaalik I do feel that the authors have not always been careful enough to ensure that the animal was placed in its proper context by news reporters."

They predicted that it would fall in the Devonian period to fit the morphology from fish to amphibian, and it did. That's usually how they make these predictions you know, based on evidence already acquired.

And that's the crux of the matter that it can only make these so-called "predictions" after evidence is uncovered and then it's also wrong. As it turns out Tikkie was a dead end. Was that fact also predicted? How about full tetrapod adaptation 20 million years before? Shubin's prediction about which strata to look in was wrong. You are also relying entirely on homology here which have been shown inherently flawed.

How is that not a prediction? They didn't know about it, but it fit the evidence, and they found it. Prediction successful.

Reread what I said. It's not a prediction of evolution. You're only claiming it as one because of the belief of who made it. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

"Michael Majerus in his 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action questioned the methodology of Bernard Kettlewell's classic experiments, matching a similar 1998 analysis by Sargent et al."

...

The issue can't be separated from the fact that Kettlewell staged the photos. Is there evidence that he faked the results? Probably not. Was there reason to suspect he did? Based on his conduct with the photos most definitely. Did he fake his results? Impossible to say.

Wells is largely being misrepresented. The problem isn't that the moths are not known to rest on trees, they are, but not during the day. He clarifies this as relating to Kettlewell's daytime experiments on p.148. The quote by Cyril Clarke is not out of context but is referring to daytime resting places as well. As for the staging of photos being standard practice the defenders of this are distorting the facts. It's acceptable to stage photos where conditions are known. Photos are staged to provide better quality and not because none can naturally be obtained. Kettlewell used staging to affirm an assumption of the conditions where they are also actually in dispute. The unstaged ones by Majerus are far from looking "no different." Based on his own observations they are rare during the day so coming by such photos would only be possible during the night. The blurring is likely due to them being opportunistic chances. As several people have noted in defense of staging photos moths do tend to move around so any single instances are not representative of their normal positions. Most importantly however the difference in camouflage is not so apparent as in Kettlewell's.

Hooper accused Kettlewell of fraud though Wells didn't and never endorsed this position. The problem with the experiments themselves were not fraudulent data but the way they were conducted. Moths released in bright light will automatically pick unnatural resting places. That Majerus repeated the experiments is fine and well and it's what should have been done. The results don't vindicate Kettlewell's experiments though as these were flawed. The experiments by Majerus also don't automatically vindicate the moths against their detractors. A group of South Korean scientists did an experiment on the landing sites of moths. Though not of the peppered variety the released moths would amazingly orientate themselves to make them as invisible as possible independent of their coloration. Their tests confirmed moths were much harder to spot in their resting than in their landing positions.

The experiment and investigation done by the researchers showed how the bacteria evolved a new type of gene that gives it resistance to certain antibiotics. They needed to understand how it evolved in order to find a way to disrupt it so that antibiotics can work against them. How is this not helpful?

So you agree then it was experiment and investigation and evolution was of no help in guiding the researchers.

[citation needed]

http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

That's not the whole quote.



In any case, I said in the first post about Junk DNA that there wasn't consensus on it being "useless". The regulatory effects have been known about for a very long time. And if Dawkins is wrong? So what? Then he's wrong. Simple as that.

Now how could I predict that was coming... It does not change the premise of the quote. "Might as well not be there" has a pretty clear meaning of being useless. You are however missing the point. Nobody ever implied that there was a consensus. Yes the regulatory effects of some "junk" DNA have been known but you are ignoring the position of many if not most before it was known and even before pseudogenes were discovered. As we can see though many still disregard this regulatory role as only applying to some DNA. Dawkins is just one example here, Luskin gave more. Your own reference to Ryan Gregory indicates this mindset. Even when confronted by the facts he prefers to think of 80% of DNA as having no function rather than 80% having function.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I have and by all accounts they appear to be more substantive than the "it happened due to a number of happy accidents" line. Here's more on that mythical unbiased thinking ability you're assuming people base their standards on http://www.livescience.com/5508-people-unsure-beliefs-close-minded.html

ID substantive?

I never said bias cannot be involved. But you're effectively saying every scientist on the planet who's convinced by the veracity of the theory of evolution is doing so because they are obviously biased and unable to look at the evidence objectively. This is monumentally arrogant.

It should come as no surprise that the same arguments you are making here were made in defense of the Ptolemaic theory yet in many aspects its shortcomings resemble those of evolution to a tee. What is different then that makes you so certain that the vast majority are right this time where they have been wrong on numerous occasions in the past?

That's why falsification is important. The issue is that the people who so gleefully proclaim that evolution is bunk are unable to substantiate why, and the vast majority of scientists agree on this.

There is no observation and experiment that can be applied to the past. Evolution is all inferences. Chance is the only explanation we are ever offered: "no you're wrong it could have been chance mutations so there's no need to consider that an intelligence might have been involved." Are you then saying that it wasn't chance? THAT sounds like ID. Otherwise you have to stick to it being chance.

No, I'm saying it's not only chance. Natural selection is key, and it isn't random.

If you're saying an intelligence is involved, then show us how that has been shown by observation and experiment. How do you test for intelligent design? How could it be falsified?

The point was that a large percentage of scientists (41) have no reason to accept anything but a natural origin. You try to dodge this by claiming that nearly everyone involved with it (ID, Creationism) seems to be Christian. Despite that this is fallacious reasoning (America is not a representation of the world, it just hogs most of the media) and that there are actually people of multiple religious affiliations involved it actually doesn't have the implication you think it does. It just shows that we can accept multiple explanations while atheists are the ones that can only acknowledge one.

Uhm, no. Religious people only have one explanation to offer. '<insert whatever deity> did it.' That's always the explanation. Saying they 'have no reason to accept anything but a natural origin' is inaccurate. It says nothing about them changing their minds in the future, given evidence gathered. Nothing in the evidence we've obtained thus far points to a supernatural or divine origin.

Look at the people driving Intelligent Design. They're practically all Christians. The Discovery Institute, the ICR, Answers In Genesis, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Casey Luskin. All of them. Read about the Wedge Document, for example. It's christian creationism in a new set of clothes.

And by the way, Ken Miller is a Roman Catholic.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...d-every-time?p=9712484&viewfull=1#post9712484

Proper references that show that it was Intelligent Design that predicted these things, please.

The mistake to refer to it as Boisvert's statement rather than the journal's was rectified as you can see and was not an intentional misrepresentation. As for Coates and Ahlberg they did make those statements. Ahlberg only clarified what he meant by a "step backwards" in that thread where he also acknowledges that it was perhaps a simplification.

Look at Ahlberg's first post. He says "Casey Luskin is not even worth addressing." This indicates a repeated pattern of behaviour. He left out the important parts of Ahlberg and Coates' words, misrepresenting them. He claims they're saying the quality of Tiktaalik as a fossil is poor, which is not what they're saying.

Boisvert clarifies: "As you know, the “Discovery” Institute tactic is not to go to the primary literature in order to understand it but rather to use quotations from secondary, even tertiary sources, reorganise or use them out of context opportunistically to their own convenience. In this case, they used an article where the journalists unfortunately misunderstood me. Tiktaalik’s material is in fact exquisite, it is very well preserved, basically uncrushed and can be prepared out to be examined in three dimensions. I never said the quality was poor. I have simply explained that the morphology of the fin of Panderichthys is more tetrapod-like than that of Tiktaalik, which has nothing to do with the quality of the material."

Ahlberg clarifies: "Is there a problem with the way Tiktaalik has been hyped? Yes, there is. Does this mean that it has been "dethroned" by Panderichthys, or that it is no longer relevant to the question of tetrapod origins? No it doesn't."

This contradicts his claim that it is being dethroned. He misrepresented them. Just admit it. Read that whole post properly.

He also attacked Ken Miller in 3-parts: here, here and here. Miller responded, delivering quite a blow to poor old deluded Luskin. Also in 3 parts: here, here and here. Seems Nick Matzke and Ian Musgrave also tear him apart. Hilariously, Michael Behe also comes out looking more of a fool, at the hands of his own fellow ID'er.

Also how is this for a "quote-mine," you conveniently highlight the last part of the sentence when he also says "there is always a temptation for the scientists to boost the profile of their particular find, and in the case of Tiktaalik I do feel that the authors have not always been careful enough to ensure that the animal was placed in its proper context by news reporters."

How is that a quote-mine? I quoted those words. I agree with him, and if that was Luskin's main point, that it might have been exaggerated then it would have been fine. But it wasn't.

As it turns out Tikkie was a dead end.

No, it wasn't a dead end. I'd suggest listening to what the actual scientists involved in the work are saying rather than Luskin and his misinformation.

Reread what I said. It's not a prediction of evolution. You're only claiming it as one because of the belief of who made it. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Why is it not a prediction of evolution? He predicted how a creature fitting similar criteria might have evolved similarly. It panned out. What more do you want? Here's a paper on the topic.

The issue can't be separated from the fact that Kettlewell staged the photos. Is there evidence that he faked the results? Probably not. Was there reason to suspect he did? Based on his conduct with the photos most definitely. Did he fake his results? Impossible to say.
*snipped for brevity*

The actual studies weren't done based on photographs, they were done on scientific data. Majerus was aware of the criticism, and made sure to address it in his own experiments.

As for Wells, read what Grant wrote about him.

So you agree then it was experiment and investigation and evolution was of no help in guiding the researchers.

Experiment and investigation of how it evolved. This helped them. That's what they're saying themselves. Why do you know better than the people who actually did the experiments?

http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

Quite a bit of that hype mentioned earlier in that article, too.

It hasn't been published yet, and the guy himself isn't sure of the outcome. As it says "If it turns out that the traditional mammal tree is right, Peterson won't see that result as a defeat for microRNAs. It would just mean that something odd happened with mammalian microRNAs."

So let's wait for them to finish their work before jumping up and down. Nevertheless, interesting stuff.

Good article on that.