Monday, July 9, 2012

The Difference Between Science and Evolution

It is the worst sin of science. Scientists sometimes make mathematical errors. They also make measurement mistakes, logical fallacies and a host of other blunders. They even formulate hypotheses that don’t make sense. But all of these must happen, for to err is human. What scientists don’t do, or at least very rarely do, is knowingly misrepresent science. It’s a nice way of saying scientists don’t lie. It is unacceptable in science. In other fields lying may be routine. It may even be justified and expected. Salespeople lie to buyers and buyers lie back to the salesperson. And that is just one example of many. As financier Jean-Claude Juncker once said, “When it’s serious, you have to lie.” But not in science.

Evolution is often considered part of science but truth telling is one of their differences. As with politics, lying is fundamental to evolution. Evolutionists lie without even realizing it. They argue strenuously there is no lie—right after telling a lie.

For instance, when promoting evolution, evolutionists insist evolution is a fact. And when they say “evolution” they mean it in the colloquial sense. That is, bacteria are supposed to have evolved into multicellular organisms leading to fish. Fish evolved into amphibians. Amphibians evolved into reptiles. Reptiles evolved into mammals. And so forth, all in a gradual process of common descent. All of this occurred via random events and the interplay of natural laws. It is a big claim and you can see examples of such fact claims here.

Evolutionary theory is an overarching idea that is highly flexible and often difficult to define precisely. This is particularly a problem when it is found to be in conflict with scientific findings, which is quite often. In these moments, rather than admit the failure, the theory morphs in order to absorb the uncooperative findings. All of this is problematic, but at least there is a theory, even if amorphous, to work with.

But when evolutionists are trying to justify or defend their theory, they radically lower the bar by redefining evolution as mere change over time. For instance, the easily defended and uncontroversial claim that gene frequencies change over time becomes the definition of evolution. You can see examples of this here.

It is a classic bait-and-switch. Evolutionists insist that the species arose strictly naturalistically and indeed that all of biology originated spontaneously. But when justifying their claim they suddenly switch the claim to mere change over time. Their claim goes from the metaphysically-laden and undefendable to the empirical and trivial.

The problem with evolution is not the theory itself. Evolution may be true, it may be false, or it may be somewhere in between. The problem is the religious dogma that motivates evolution and insists that evolution is a scientific conclusion of the same certainty as gravity, heliocentrism and that the Earth isn’t flat. This big claim is absurd beyond measure and so when questioned evolutionists then have no choice but to play their shell game.

If this were science it wouldn’t be permitted for whereas lying is expected in some fields, it is the worst sin of science.

161 comments:

  1. The constant lying is what gets to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consider that it may not be lying at all, Louis.

      It may be (indeed it is) that you are misunderstanding what is being said.

      Delete
  2. Cornelius with the Creationist Meme #5:

    "Equivocate over the term 'evolution' meaning both the fact and the theory."

    Zzzzzzz.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Evolutionist lie #1:

    The fossil record shows transitional fossils. This is solid evidence for evolution.

    This is, of course, true. However, it is not evidence for the Darwinian mechanism of evolution. It is only evidence for a progression, in the same sense that there was a progression from the horse carriage to the modern automobile. Well whoop-dee-doo!

    What bothers me is that evolutionist lies are not particularly clever. They are blatant and in your face but somehow they get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Diogenes:

      Evolutionary theory makes testable predictions that have been confirmed by observation-- no creationist nor ID proponent can say that.

      Another liar heard from. The TOE makes no prediction that can specifically and completely falsify it. Zilch. Nada. I challenge you right here to provide just one that is not a lie or a deception.

      ID, by contrast, makes a specific prediction that can be easily tested with modern computers and an examination of the fossil record. ID predicts a non-nested and punctuated (not gradual) tree of life. Why? Because that is the nature of the evolution of intelligent design as we know it: as design progresses over time, new classes of objects inherit the features of older classes so that the inheritance structure takes the shape of a hierarchy, i.e., a tree. In software engineering, it's called object-oriented design.

      Unlike the nested Darwinian TOL, the designed TOL is not restricted by common descent, i.e., it is not necessarily nested. This is the reason that the identical designs are found in distant branches of the TOL.

      Design evolution (DE) is being corroborated as I write by both the fossil and the genetic records. Live with it.

      The theory that dirt turned into the human genome via a magic puff of smoke makes no testable predictions. We have the fossils. We win. You just lie about it.

      Like Hunter says, you people have a serious religious hangup. I am a Christian and the scriptures teach me that everything that was created was made through knowledge and wisdom. In other words. they were intelligently designed. The "magic puff of smoke" is your own pathetic little strawman that you can wrestle to the ground with great fanfare in order to claim some semblance of victory. It's stupid, man. It's weak. Give it up.

      Delete
    3. LS -

      Another liar heard from. The TOE makes no prediction that can specifically and completely falsify it. Zilch. Nada. I challenge you right here to provide just one that is not a lie or a deception.

      The oft-cited 'rabbit in the Cambrian' would falsify evolution. Or, more specifically, if the fossil record showed no progressive change in species. If instead, all classes of animals appeared all over the place. But this is not the pattern we observe.

      ID predicts a non-nested

      Then it fails there as the ToL IS nested...

      and punctuated (not gradual) tree of life.

      Why would ID predict a tree of life at all? If life was designed - especially by an omnipotent and omniscient designer - then he would be able to create all sorts of animals on day one.

      Why? Because that is the nature of the evolution of intelligent design as we know it: as design progresses over time, new classes of objects inherit the features of older classes so that the inheritance structure takes the shape of a hierarchy, i.e., a tree.

      The 'evolution' of designed objects just as cars very loosely fits into a tree shape because people experiment and try out designs, and we build on the good ideas people have had before us. An omniscient being would have no need to do this. They would have no need to experiment as they would know before hand what would work and what would not.

      Unlike the nested Darwinian TOL, the designed TOL is not restricted by common descent, i.e., it is not necessarily nested.

      True. And when we look at the TOL we see nested common descent.

      . I am a Christian and the scriptures teach me that everything that was created was made through knowledge and wisdom.

      You freely admit you are getting 'scientific' knowledge through your holy book. It is your religious beliefs which colour your view on the evolution of life on Earth. And you think 'evolutionists' are the ones with the religious bias? Please.

      Delete
    4. Louis Savain writes:

      ID predicts a non-nested and punctuated (not gradual) tree of life. Why? Because that is the nature of the evolution of intelligent design as we know it: as design progresses over time, new classes of objects inherit the features of older classes so that the inheritance structure takes the shape of a hierarchy, i.e., a tree. In software engineering, it's called object-oriented design.

      Wow. Just wow. You know nothing about, well, anything.

      In software engineering, object-oriented design is not mandatory and does NOT produce a unique nested hierarchy.

      Most software engineers do not use object-oriented design. It's optional. Object-oriented programming is expensive and time-consuming.

      Moreover, OOP does not produce a unique nested hierarchy analogous to the tree of life. For one thing, objects can have multiple parents. An object can have an unlimited number of parents. Structurally, the design of OOP is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) not a unique nested hierarchy (UNH).

      In a DAG, each node can have multiple parents and multiple children. In a UNH, each node has one parent and multiple children. A DAG is net-like, a UNH is tree-like.

      Moreover, OOP is optional. Some programmers use it, some don't. The main motivation for using it is so that your software would be "readable" and thus easier to modify in the future.

      So, in order for you to draw an analogy between OOP and the tree of life, you must assert you know the purposes and intents of the Intelligent Designer.

      That's making a metaphysical assumption. You do not know any purposes or abilities of the Intelligent Designer, so you can't predict squat.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. Buh-bye! Another occultist runs away weeping to mama.

      You hate scientists because they threaten your gigantic ego. You have to lie about other people as a way of mentally handling your inadequacies.

      Scientific evidence, you know nothing about and have no curiosity about.

      Scientists make you feel inferior. You should. So run back to mama, crybaby.

      Delete
    7. Diogenes:Most software engineers do not use object-oriented design.

      Most software engineers do not use object-oriented design? What do you mean?
      I don't have any numbers, but if I should guess I would say more than 90% of software development today is done using object-oriented programming.
      Apart from programming at the "low-level" (assembler), I don't think there is much programming being done which is NOT object-oriented.

      Diogenes: Object-oriented programming is expensive and time-consuming.

      How is it expensive and time consuming??
      People use it because it makes the program clean and structured ...and therefore also saves alot of time and money.

      Diogenes:Moreover, OOP does not produce a unique nested hierarchy analogous to the tree of life. For one thing, objects can have multiple parents.

      Again, I am very curious about what you mean; how can an object have multiple parents???
      Can you give a program example of what you mean?


      Diogenes:The main motivation for using it is so that your software would be "readable" and thus easier to modify in the future.

      The main reason for using object oriented programming is because it makes the design clean and easy in every way.
      You have a clean structure in your program, which makes the job alot easier.

      Delete
  4. The fossil record shows transitional fossils. This is solid evidence for evolution.

    And yet, according to evolutionist Lynn Margulis:

    I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …

    There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity.


    http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg71

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr. Cornelius certainly sounds like a creationist fanatic and is about as honest. He does not provide any evidence for his claims that

    "lying is fundamental to evolution. Evolutionists lie without even realizing it."

    No Dr. Cornelius, lying is fundamental to creationism, as we have seen in this post, where you imply that there is no gradualism in the fossil record. How about all hominid cranial sizes?

    It really takes guts to make a claim like that, IMMEDIATELY after the publication of a special issue in Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B on brain evolution. Anyone can read the chart of hominid cranial sizes here:

    “Hominin cognitive evolution: identifying patterns and processes in the fossil and archaeological record.” Susanne Shultz, Emma Nelson and Robin I. M. Dunbar. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 5 August 2012 vol. 367 no. 1599 2130-2140.

    And how about the Dmanisi Homo erectus fossils?

    Or how about "Hominins are a single lineage"? You DO know what the title means, right? See: Henneberg M, de Miguel C. Homo. 2004;55(1-2):21-37.

    How about cave bears: "From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." --Kurten, B. 1976. The Cave Bear Story. Columbia University Press, New York

    How about foraminifera, and many others? How about Hilgendorf's snails?

    Oh forget it, just look at some pictures: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series.html.

    How about Casey Luskin again lying about how scientists said Junk DNA = non-coding DNA. Remember that one? And "much" DNA is functional. "Much." Right. You're at it again.

    How about Jonathan Wells and Phillip Johnson lying about how peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks, and that all the moth photos were fake? Remember that one?

    How about Caroline Crocker telling her students that:
    1. a hyrax is a hyracotherium,
    2. hyracotheria are found in the same strata as modern horses (off by 50 million years);
    3. there's only one Archaeopteryx fossil (there are 10)
    4. Archaeopteryx is a fraud
    5. Accused Kettlewell of fraud: "“The experiment was falsified. He glued his moths to the trees.”
    6. Faked a quote from Stephen Jay Gould

    And that's a small part of one lecture.

    Evolutionary theory makes testable predictions that have been confirmed by observation-- no creationist nor ID proponent can say that. The theory that dirt turned into the human genome via a magic puff of smoke makes no testable predictions. We have the fossils. We win. You just lie about it.

    Being a failure burns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Dr. Cornelius, lying is fundamental to creationism, as we have seen in this post, where you imply that there is no gradualism in the fossil record. How about all hominid cranial sizes?

      Big deal! Have you ever noticed the huge difference in cranial sizes between members of the same species? Compare the cranial size of a chihuahua and that of wolf. What does that prove?

      And so what if there is a progression in the cranial size of extinct species? Does that prove Darwinian evolution? I don't think so.

      By the way, don't put all critics of evolution in your young-earth creationist basket. That, too, is a lie and a deception. Karl Popper concluded that evolution was a pseudoscience and yet Popper can hardly be compared to a creationist.

      Delete
    2. Diogenes:

      Dr. Cornelius certainly sounds like a creationist fanatic and is about as honest. He does not provide any evidence for his claims ...

      Read the part that comes after "For instance ..."

      Delete
    3. Louis: By the way, don't put all critics of evolution in your young-earth creationist basket. That, too, is a lie and a deception. Karl Popper concluded that evolution was a pseudoscience and yet Popper can hardly be compared to a creationist.

      Wow. I mean, really?

      From What Did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution?

      The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]

      I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]

      The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]


      What's ironic is that the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory represents a form of Popper's theory of knowledge creation: conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

      For example, Popper was a critical rationalist, in that theories are tested by observations, not derived from them. Popper pointed out that we do not prove theories are true, but criticize them and discard errors we discover. And when we do, we make progress.

      It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981, p. 611]

      From the article...

      A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.

      So, apparently, you're not only clueless about Evolutionary theory, but Popper as well.

      Delete
  6. And so what if there is a progression in the cranial size of extinct species? Does that prove Darwinian evolution? I don't think so.

    Now you attempt to change the subject.

    It certainly proves that the claim made above, that there is no gradualism in the fossil record, is a lie.

    You can try to change the subject, but the claim that there is no gradualism in the fossil record is a lie.

    The fact that you try to change the subject shows that you have no rebuttal.

    Karl Popper concluded that evolution was a pseudoscience

    Popper was a philosopher, a chin-puller not a scientist, but even taking into account his dullness, you're still lying about his words. You cannot back up your claim that "Popper concluded evolution was a pseudoscience." He said "metaphysical research programme", and for him, metaphysical meant historical. Yeah, we know evolution is part of natural history. What else is new.

    don't put all critics of evolution in your young-earth creationist basket

    Oh if I did, I could greeeatly multiply the list of outright frauds, starting with Paluxy and going on and on... I'll keep that in the chamber.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It certainly proves that the claim made above, that there is no gradualism in the fossil record, is a lie.

    You can try to change the subject, but the claim that there is no gradualism in the fossil record is a lie.

    The fact that you try to change the subject shows that you have no rebuttal.


    You're the one who's trying to change the subject by quote mining my response, Mr. Prevaricator. I used a dog example to show that there is a huge range of cranial sizes between members of the same species. Therefore, your gradualism is just a pipe dream; cranial sizes prove nothing. The painful truth is that the predicted gradualism in the transitions from one species to another is nowhere to be found.

    He said "metaphysical research programme", and for him, metaphysical meant historical.

    The lies never stop, do they? Popper was smarter than the entire evolutionist crowd put together. Next to Popper, you're a bunch of imbeciles. Popper certainly understood the accepted meaning of the metaphysical.

    Oh if I did, I could greeeatly multiply the list of outright frauds, starting with Paluxy and going on and on... I'll keep that in the chamber.

    Says the liar and the deceiver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LS -

      And so what if there is a progression in the cranial size of extinct species? Does that prove Darwinian evolution?

      Proof? Not absolutely. But it is excellent supporting evidence. Because Darwinian evolution necessitates this progression. Which is what we do in fact find. It is what we call a fulfilled predication. And is one of many ToE has up its sleeve.

      By contrast, I don't know if ID/C has ever made a single prediction at all, never mind had one be verified.

      I used a dog example to show that there is a huge range of cranial sizes between members of the same species. Therefore, your gradualism is just a pipe dream; cranial sizes prove nothing.

      But all these dog breeds are alive at the same point in time. The early hominids lived over millions of years. Or do you think it is merely coincidence that we happen to find increasingly small craniums as we look further back through time?

      Delete
    2. Louis: The lies never stop, do they? Popper was smarter than the entire evolutionist crowd put together. Next to Popper, you're a bunch of imbeciles. Popper certainly understood the accepted meaning of the metaphysical.

      And by appealing to Popper, you've illustrated the imbecile here is you.

      For example, Popper points out that no one has formulated a "principle of induction" that works in practice. All observations are theory laden.

      So, unless you'd like to enlighten us as to how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework, there is no theory neutral way to interpret "the science" or "the data". As such, this refutes Cornelius' claim that evolutionists misrepresent "science".

      Furthermore, Popper rejects authoritative conceptions of human knowledge, such as the idea that knowledge must have some ultimate foundation, which is the underlying assumption behind Cornelius claim that evolutionary theory is absurd. It's also the underlying assumption behind claims there can be no morality without God to justify it, etc.

      In other words, you might actually want to research Popper's views on the subject of evolution and science before commenting about something you know nothing about.

      Or as Lincoln said...

      Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

      Delete
    3. I wish that all the IDists and creationists who cite Popper and Kuhn would actually read Popper and Kuhn.

      Delete
  8. CH -

    I have to say I take a dim view of the ranting that 'all evolutionists are liars'. This smacks rather of mere unthinking hate-speech. You are simply demonising those who disagree with you.

    It is a cheap and childish tactic to avoid having to engage with your opponent on an intellectual level - you simply deny that your opponent has any points worth addressing. It is a particualrly religious tactic too, which is to be expected since if the different religions were to truly engage in an intellectual level people would soon realise how barren - or at least synonymous - they all were.

    I'm all for people disagreeing. It makes for healthy debate. But at least do your opponents the curtesy of allowing that they are sincere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ritchie:

      I have to say I take a dim view of the ranting that 'all evolutionists are liars'. This smacks rather of mere unthinking hate-speech. You are simply demonising those who disagree with you. ...

      I'm all for people disagreeing. It makes for healthy debate. But at least do your opponents the curtesy of allowing that they are sincere.


      Been there, done that. As I have said many times, I don't want to call anyone a liar. I give the benefit of the doubt, but one also must tell it like it is. At some point, the stack of misrepresentations of the science gets too high.

      This "Evolution is mere change over time" is over the top. An extreme manipulation. And it doesn't come just from the chat rooms. It goes all the way up to life science professors.

      Delete
    2. This "Evolution is mere change over time" is over the top.

      That appears to be a quote taken out of context for rhetorical purposes.

      Delete
    3. This "Evolution is mere change over time" is over the top. An extreme manipulation. And it doesn't come just from the chat rooms. It goes all the way up to life science professors.

      And yet, Dr. Cornelius provides us with no citations of such. Oh, it's very important, crucially important, but not important enough for Dr. Cornelius to present ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

      What do you do all day, Dr. Cornelius? It takes you what, 20 minutes to make up something from your rich imagination for your Blog posts? How much do they pay you for this?

      Seriously, novelists and fiction writers make stuff up also, but they spend more than 20 minutes a day at it.

      OK Cornelius, you can go back to watching "Fox & Friends" now.

      Delete
    4. Pedant:

      That appears to be a quote taken out of context for rhetorical purposes.

      Oh really. So please tell us, what did Marta Wayne *really* mean when she told us that “Evolution is change in gene frequency”? What did Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner mean when they wrote that “Most simply, evolution is any change in a population’s genetic composition over time”? What did Steve Jones mean when he wrote that the changes observed in HIV contain Darwin’s “entire argument.” What did Isaac Asimov mean when he wrote that color changes in the peppered moth prove evolution?

      And while you’re at it, perhaps you can explain what evolutionists really mean when they say evolution is a scientific fact as much as is gravity. What do they really mean here in light of the fact that evolution’s predictions routinely are false and there is no scientific explanation for how evolution could have happened?

      Delete
    5. Hmm, Dr. Cornelius says he must "tell it like it is." Where have I heard that before?

      Now I remember. When Jonathan Wells was falsely stating that all photos of peppered moths on trees were fakes, and when he was accusing Michael Majerus (who took photos of live moths in the wild on trees) of being in the vast materialist conspiracah, Wells said he was just telling it like it is.

      Wells wrote [capitalization in original]:

      “BUT EVERYONE, INCLUDING MAJERUS, HAS KNOWN SINCE THE 1980′S THAT PEPPERED MOTHS DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS IN THE WILD. This means that every time those staged photographs have been knowingly re-published since the 1980′s constitutes a case of deliberate scientific fraud. Michael Majerus is being dishonest, and textbook-writers are lying to biology students. The behavior of these people is downright scandalous.”

      “Fraud is fraud. It’s time to tell it like it is.”


      Indeed. Indeed. Downright scandalous.

      Delete
    6. CH -

      Been there, done that.

      Have you? So you have released papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals demonstrating your points?

      This "Evolution is mere change over time" is over the top. An extreme manipulation.

      Not a manipulation, Cornelius. Just a highly contentious word, it seems. You yourself have been accused of bait-and-switch tactics between the fact and theory of evolution. Are we to go around call you a liar?

      Evolution in it's broadest sense simply means progressive change. In this sense it can be applied to pretty much anything. We may talk about the 'evolution' of mobile phones, or of planets.

      But more specifically and commonly, evolution is a biological term and does indeed mean change over time (specifically change in allele frequency in a population). And that is all. If you think this is an incorrect definition of this word then you are wrong.

      Many naturalists spent many years puzzling out exactly HOW this evolution occurs. What mechanisms cause this change. Eventually Darwin declared it happens through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. Eventually his theory caught and has become almost universally accepted by the scientific academia. Now we have a new definition of 'evolution', which is The Theory of Evolution Via Natural Selection, though many people consider it practically indistinguishable from our second definition.

      I advice you to be extremely clear which of the three definitions you mean when you use this word. Otherwise misunderstanding apparently arise and then the 'LIAR!' accusation gets batted back and forth.

      Delete
    7. Ritchie:

      But more specifically and commonly, evolution is a biological term and does indeed mean change over time (specifically change in allele frequency in a population). And that is all. If you think this is an incorrect definition of this word then you are wrong.

      No, you're confused about this. Evolutionists claim the origin of species via evolution is a fact. Then to defend that non scientific claim they switch the definition to changing gene frequencies. Changing gene frequencies is an empirical observation. It is a bait-and-switch for evolutionists to self-righteously defend this as though there was ever any meaning to the claim. It is simply a meaningless statement. It would be like saying it is a fact that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. Of course, everyone knows that it. It is simply a disingenuous, self-serving canard that doesn't advance the debate in any meaningful way.

      Here's an analogy that might help you. Imagine a flat-earther claiming it is a fact. When questioned, he strenuously asserts that it simply is a fact that the field he is standing in is flat.

      Delete
    8. Pedant said:

      That appears to be a quote taken out of context for rhetorical purposes.

      Hunter replied:

      Oh really. So please tell us, what did Marta Wayne *really* mean when she told us that “Evolution is change in gene frequency”?

      She meant that evolution is change in gene frequency. Not "mere change over time."

      What did Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner mean when they wrote that “Most simply, evolution is any change in a population’s genetic composition over time”?

      They meant what they said, just like what Marta Wayne meant.

      What did Steve Jones mean when he wrote that the changes observed in HIV contain Darwin’s “entire argument.”

      I might have an idea, but without a reference and without any relevance to your quote ["Evolution is mere change over time"] it doesn't seem germane to your claim that scientists are liars.

      What did Isaac Asimov mean when he wrote that color changes in the peppered moth prove evolution?

      He probably meant that those data are evidence for evolution. But I think that a sensible person would cut a novelist and essayist like Asimov some slack when it comes to a sloppy or rhetorical use of the word "prove."

      Calling such people liars is over the top, as someone said.

      Delete
    9. Hunter:

      No, you're confused about this. Evolutionists claim the origin of species via evolution is a fact. Then to defend that non scientific claim they switch the definition to changing gene frequencies.

      No, you're confused about this, and it is apparently in your personal interest to remain confused. The argument for the factual nature of evolution rests on more than changes in gene frequencies (see, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life).

      Discovering and understanding changes in gene frequencies are the fundamental bases for understanding changes in life forms over time. (See the scientific literature.)

      Playing dumb is a mug's game, but it looks like it's your main game, Dr Hunter.

      Delete
    10. Pedant:

      She meant that evolution is change in gene frequency

      Why do you think evolutionists would point that out? Don't we all know and agree on this obvious fact? Why do you think they say this so often?

      Delete
    11. Pedant:

      Discovering and understanding changes in gene frequencies are the fundamental bases for understanding changes in life forms over time. (See the scientific literature.)

      But of course we’re not talking about “Discovering and understanding” changes in gene frequencies, are we? We’re talking about evolutionists equating changes in gene frequencies with evolution.

      Playing dumb is a mug's game, but it looks like it's your main game, Dr Hunter.

      Sorry, I don’t follow. How is it that I’m “Playing dumb”?

      Delete
    12. Diogenes:

      Dr. Cornelius certainly sounds like a creationist fanatic and is about as honest. He does not provide any evidence for his claims ...

      Well I suppose that’s true if you don’t actually read the post. Next time read past the first paragraph.


      CH: This "Evolution is mere change over time" is over the top. An extreme manipulation. And it doesn't come just from the chat rooms. It goes all the way up to life science professors.

      Diogenes: And yet, Dr. Cornelius provides us with no citations of such. Oh, it's very important, crucially important, but not important enough for Dr. Cornelius to present ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.


      No citations? Actually I provided this link:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/01/evolution-professors-evolution-is.html

      which cites Moore’s book: *Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science*.

      By the way, if you want more examples you can see them here:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-evidence-of-adaptive-mutations.html
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/11/lets-talk-about-evolution-how-religious.html


      What do you do all day, Dr. Cornelius? It takes you what, 20 minutes to make up something from your rich imagination for your Blog posts? How much do they pay you for this? Seriously, novelists and fiction writers make stuff up also, but they spend more than 20 minutes a day at it. OK Cornelius, you can go back to watching "Fox & Friends" now.

      Well one thing I don’t do is tell people that it is a fact that the entire biological world arose spontaneously.

      Delete
    13. CH -

      Evolutionists claim the origin of species via evolution is a fact. Then to defend that non scientific claim they switch the definition to changing gene frequencies.

      Cornelius, those are the same claim! Take a species population, change the alleles within it (to a great enough degree), and you end up with a different species. A new species has originated via evolution.

      This is not bait-and-switch, this is the same claim made twice.

      Delete
    14. Hunter:

      But of course we’re not talking about “Discovering and understanding” changes in gene frequencies, are we? We’re talking about evolutionists equating changes in gene frequencies with evolution.

      That's what I mean when I say that you are playing dumb!

      In case you didn't follow what I said (and what scientists say), those changes in gene frequencies = evolution.

      Delete
    15. Ritchie:

      Cornelius, those are the same claim! Take a species population, change the alleles within it (to a great enough degree), and you end up with a different species. A new species has originated via evolution.

      This is not bait-and-switch, this is the same claim made twice.


      No, these are not the same claim. Changing gene frequencies can occur in the absence of any morphological change.

      Delete
    16. Pedant:

      In case you didn't follow what I said (and what scientists say), those changes in gene frequencies = evolution.

      This is a shell game. Changing gene frequencies can occur in the absence of any morphological change. When you claim the origin of the species via evolution is a fact, and then respond to criticism, that your claim is false, with the argument that changing gene frequencies is a fact, you are playing a shell game.

      Delete
    17. No, these are not the same claim. Changing gene frequencies can occur in the absence of any morphological change.

      Yes these are the same claim. Whilst it is POSSIBLE to change gene frequency without morphological change, it often does bring about morphological change. And the only difference between species is gene frequency.

      It is not morphological change with differentiates species. It is gene frequency.

      Delete
    18. Ritchie:

      Yes these are the same claim. Whilst it is POSSIBLE to change gene frequency without morphological change, it often does bring about morphological change. And the only difference between species is gene frequency.

      No, you're making a mistake there. The change that evolution must have brought about requires far more than mere gene frequency changes. That is why it is a shell game.

      Delete
    19. The change that evolution must have brought about requires far more than mere gene frequency changes.

      What other changes must evolution have brought about to give rise to a new species?

      Delete
    20. Ritchie:

      What other changes must evolution have brought about to give rise to a new species?

      There are all kinds of differences evolution must have created. From the genome to cellular morphology to body plan, and everything in between. Even different variants within the same species are found with quite different genomes.

      Delete
    21. CH -

      So when a population speciates into two, we only allow that there are two distinct species when they are distinctintly different on the level of "the genone, their celular morphology, body plan and everything in between", do we? Nothing less than this qualifies the branching population as a new species? Is that right?

      Delete
    22. CH: No, you're making a mistake there. The change that evolution must have brought about requires far more than mere gene frequency changes. That is why it is a shell game.

      There is no shell game, Cornelius. What there is is massive goal-post moving on your part

      It is not "a fact" that "changes in allele frequency over time" brought about "evolution" where "evolution" means "the vast changes in organisms since the emergence of life". In any case "changes in allele frequency" is not a causal mechanism (it brings nothing about), but a description of a phenonomenon sometimes referred to as "evolution".

      Indeed we know that the changes in populations of organism over the history of life on earth, which we sometimes refer to as "evolution" is not simply a matter of "changes in allele frequencies" - allele frequency changes are only applicable to sexually reproducing populations anyway, and there were eons of non-sexually reproducing organisms before sexually reproducing ones appeared.

      But changes in allele frequency that result in changes in phenotypic features that are adaptive to a changed environment (adaptive evolution aka Darwinian evolution) is a fact. Darwin's mechanism works, and can be observed occurring.

      However, Darwin did not propose a mechanism of variation generation (he did not even have a mechanism of heredity) and we still do not know all there is to know (and may never know all there is to know) about the generation of heritable variance. What we do know is that given genetic variance with phenotypic effects, Darwinian evolution occurs. That is a fact. We also know that morphological and genetic features of organisms form a nested hierarchy, implying bifurcating lineages. This is also a fact.

      Put together, we have an excellent model of how those lineages diverged and adapted over time.

      It is not a lie to say any of these things. In fact, it is a lie to say that they are lies.

      Or would be if you knew them to be untrue. I do not accuse you of lying. I do accuse you of culpable ignorance.

      Delete
    23. Cornelius,

      Are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils?

      Note: by interpretation, I'm specifically referring to one of the three components of a scientific theory: formalisms, observations and interpretations.

      After all, there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same evidence, yet suggest that dinosaurs never existed millions of years ago. Right?

      For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations.

      Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them. This is the same sort of reasoning that suggests human consciousness is so unique that determinism simply doesn't apply to it.

      Or one could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils.

      Not to mention the rival interpretation that designer chose to create the world we observe last thursday. Therefore, dinosaurs couldn't be the explanation for fossils, because said designer created them last week with the appearance of being millions of years old.

      So, Interpretations can be infinitely varied to accept the same empirical observations, yet suggest something completely different is happening in reality. This includes dinosaurs never having existed millions of years ago, while accepting the very same observations of fossils.

      This infinite variability is why scientific theories are not merely about interpretations alone. Rather, a theory's explanations, which represent all aspects of a theory - formalism, observations and interpretations - form a coherent whole for the purpose of criticism. They depend on each other.

      If they didn't depend on each other, it wouldn't be possible to make progress as there would be an infinite number of interpretations which could not be criticized.

      Again, this is why we do not speak of dinosaurs as merely an interpretation of our best theory of fossils. Rather, we say dinosaurs are the explanation of fossils. It's also why the explanation is primarily about dinosaurs, rather than fossils, despite fossils being the "things" being observed.

      However, you're attempting to depict empirical observations as being independent of interpretations, in that they are not part of a coherent whole. But as I've illustrated, there are an infinite number of interpretations can result in significantly different assumptions about reality - despite accepting the same same empirical observations.

      So, to rephrase the question, are we lying when we do not speak of dinosaurs as merely our best interpretation of our best theory of fossils, despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same evidence, yet suggest that dinosaurs never existed millions of years ago?

      Are we lying due to the fact that the theory is no primarily about fossils, but about dinosaurs?

      Delete
    24. Ritchie:

      So when a population speciates into two, we only allow that there are two distinct species when they are distinctintly different on the level of "the genone, their celular morphology, body plan and everything in between", do we? Nothing less than this qualifies the branching population as a new species? Is that right?

      The question here is not what “we allow” but what evolution must be capable of--what it must have done. Your focusing on speciation illustrates this shell game. If you want to know the exact changes that are required for speciation, the answer is “it depends.” For instance, you first need to choose your definition of speciation, of which there are many. In general it is going to involve more than mere gene frequency changes.

      But once the shells are removed one realizes none of this matters to the claim. The claim is that the origin of species via evolution is a fact as much as is gravity. This is not the mere changing of gene allele frequencies. Evolution involves far more than this. In fact, in their honest moments, evolutionists admit they do not have a mechanism to explain the massive change to construct incredible structures, that evolution requires. So to defend the claim by redefining evolution as mere allele frequency changes is a bait-and-switch, shell game, which you seem to be comfortable with.

      Delete
    25. EL:

      But changes in allele frequency that result in changes in phenotypic features that are adaptive to a changed environment (adaptive evolution aka Darwinian evolution) is a fact. Darwin's mechanism works, and can be observed occurring.

      False.

      What we do know is that given genetic variance with phenotypic effects, Darwinian evolution occurs. That is a fact.

      False.

      We also know that morphological and genetic features of organisms form a nested hierarchy, implying bifurcating lineages. This is also a fact.

      False.

      Put together, we have an excellent model of how those lineages diverged and adapted over time.

      False.

      It is not a lie to say any of these things.

      Of course it is.

      Delete
    26. Hunter in complete denial. Priceless.

      Delete
    27. oleg:

      Hunter in complete denial. Priceless.

      How is it that ORFans, just to pick one example of many, fit within the nested hierarchy? Please explain for us how it is "complete denial" to reject evolutionary claims that "morphological and genetic features of organisms form a nested hierarchy" when it is well known that morphological and genetic features conflict with each other (and themselves for that matter). While you're at it you can also explain why even evolutionists, in their honest moments, are walking back the evolutionary tree model.

      Delete
    28. What exactly do you mean by walking back? Shall I quote again from Doolittle and Bapteste or do you still remember that conversation?

      Delete
    29. oleg:

      What exactly do you mean by walking back? Shall I quote again from Doolittle and Bapteste or do you still remember that conversation?

      By walking back I mean that even evolutionists are, occasionally, acknowledging the limitations of the evolutionary tree model. From a scientific perspective the data (eg, genetic and cellular designs to development pathways to morphological features) do not fit the evolutionary tree model.

      Evolutionists typically view this as evidence that there must be some complex combination of known and unknown evolutionary mechanisms at work. Some have been hypothesized (such as Woese's communities of lateral evolution) which are motivated not by any evidence (nothing like it has been observed) but by the mandate for evolution. Obviously that does not change the fact that the data do not fit the tree model.

      Evolutionists think evolution is a fact and impose that on the data. It is, however, the data which are the facts, not evolution. And the "facts" do not agree with the evolutionary tree model and prediction.

      Evolutionists, however, typically deny this and continue to preach the evolutionary dogma that the data obey their theory. To reject this is not to be in "complete denial" as you contend.

      Discussions with evolutionists about the science don't get very far though because, ultimately, we lack a common basis. Science, and the scientific data do not drive evolution. Evolution is driven by metaphysics which are imposed on the science.

      It is what it is. Evolution has repeatedly failed on the science. You can acknowledge the science, or go in a different direction. But don't fool yourself.

      Delete
    30. Hunter: Evolutionists typically view this as evidence that there must be some complex combination of known and unknown evolutionary mechanisms at work. Some have been hypothesized (such as Woese's communities of lateral evolution) which are motivated not by any evidence (nothing like it has been observed) but by the mandate for evolution. Obviously that does not change the fact that the data do not fit the tree model.

      That's the same process that happens in other areas of science. At the end of the nineteenth century Newtonian mechanics was shown to be wrong at relativistic speeds and physicists were looking for an alternative theory. They did not discard Newtonian mechanics, however, because it still worked at low speeds.

      The same happened in the early twentieth century when Classical physics was not up to task of explaining the structure of the atom. Planck had to conjecture quantization of energy that no one has seen before. Bohr came up with a ridiculous idea of quantized orbits. Wave-particle dualism, all that. It took a while to develop quantum physics, but in the end it happened. Note that we did not discard classical physics even after that! Why? Because it works away from the quantum and relativistic realms, that's why!

      So it is in biology. Biologists have discovered that the tree of life does not have a tree structure at the root. Great. There were different biological mechanisms at work back then. There is never a guarantee that our theories, tested in one realm, can be extended without limit (see the two previous paragraphs).

      So the tree model is not applicable to early life. That does not mean it is inapplicable to life's later stages. We are still cousins of apes, second cousins of monkeys, more distant relatives of mice, and so on.

      Delete
    31. CH: The question here is not what “we allow” but what evolution must be capable of--what it must have done. Your focusing on speciation illustrates this shell game.

      The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that evolutionary processes are capable of creating the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations via a form of conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

      This would have testable consequences for the present state of the biosphere, which we could deduce based on our best, current explanations. From there, we can make mutually exclusive predictions based on these consequences and devise experiments designed to falsify at least one prediction using empirical observations.

      So, what's key here creatively conjecturing mutually exclusive predictions that can be falsified by observations. In doing so, we are guaranteed to make progress by at least falsifying one prediction.

      In other words, evolutionary theory is well within Popper's demarcation of science as defined in The logic of Scientific Discovery

      As for what evolution must be capable of, why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that explanation. Please be specific.

      Delete
    32. Cornelius, you do understand, presumably, that genetic material can be transferred not only longitudinally, via reproduction, but horizontally, e.g. via viruses?

      And that therefore, in addition to the tree pattern of gene-sequence distribution you'd expect from longitudinal (hereditary) transfer, we would now expect an additional between-branch pattern representing HGT?

      And that as we do not regard the viruses that contribute to our genome as our "ancestors", reserving that word for our lineage by birth rather than our lineage by infection, that the evidence of inter-branch transfer does not falsify the hypothesis of common ancestry?

      And that once a horizontally transferred genetic sequence has been thus transferred, it will then descend by reproductive means down the lineage, providing us with excellent markers of descent?

      And that HGT sequences are unlikely to represent transfer of phenotypic features?

      If not, you need to do some homework.

      Delete
    33. Oh, Hunter is aware of HGT. He does not dispute its existence. He falls back on the usual creationist approach: but where did HGT come from? (And, needless to say, it's incredibly complicated.)

      Here is a key graph from that link:

      But epicycles are not free. In this case, the marshalling of HGTs as the explanation for biology’s patterns and success raises the question of where these complex mechanisms came from in the first place. According to evolutionary theory, evolution created the incredibly complex HGTs which then facilitated, yes, evolution.

      Delete
    34. CH, from your link:

      So HGT is now a key mechanism of the evolutionary process. It can do what the old mechanisms could not. In fact, one must wonder how this powerful mechanism knows when to send which genes where. For the various versions of HGT are incredibly intelligent.

      One must wonder what?

      sheesh.

      Delete
    35. EL:

      One must wonder what? sheesh.

      Just add water right? For evolutionists it all just happens, somehow.

      For instance, consider the HGT process of transformation in which DNA from the extracellular environment is imported into the cell via what one paper describes as “a complex process” involving a small army of protein machines.

      Then there is the HGT process of conjugation in which the DNA is transferred via cell-to-cell contact. A bridge-like connection is constructed between the two cells through which helpful DNA is transferred. And the donor cell has the molecular machinery to verify that the receiving cell does not already possess the donated DNA. And the DNA includes genes critical in the conjugation process. The DNA to be sent over is nicked and unwound so a single strand can be threaded through the bridge connection.


      The evolutionary pattern failed and so evolutionists must turn to some complicated set of known and unknown mechanisms. HGT has been a popular go-to explanation. But of course HGT itself must have somehow been created by evolution. So evolution created those incredible mechanisms when then produced evolution. With evolution the absurdity continues.

      Delete
    36. Cornelius, this is sheer nonsense. What do scientists do when their previous favorite theory fails? They develop a new one that goes beyond the old paradigm. Surprise!

      I am sure you understand that, so you are likely not arguing against the development of a new theory per se. You just want the old theory scrapped altogether. But don't hold you breath. As anyone familiar with the history of science knows, old theories don't necessarily get thrown into the dustbin.

      Classical physics failed on more than one occasion. Entirely new—and complex—theories had to be written from scratch. Yet it is still with us. There are lots and lots of examples of that. So get used to it: theory of evolution is here to stay.

      Your specific complaint is pretty silly. HGT is a known mechanism that has been seen even in animals. It surely did operate during the early development of life, when organisms were much simpler and their genes were not all that well hidden.

      Delete
    37. The "yes, but where does HGT come from?" comeback is silly.

      The Standard Model of particle physics relies on the Higgs mechanism to generate masses of many particles. It does not explain where the Higgs field comes from. This is physics beyond the Standard Model, which we do not understand. That nonetheless does not preclude physicists from making predictions, one of which is the existence of a Higgs boson (ripples in the Higgs field created by particle collisions). The Higgs boson has just been observed.

      We don't understand why there is a Higgs field. It's a hypothesis that explains lots of things within the Standard Model. Experimentally verified. By your logic, this would be a failure.

      Delete
    38. The evolutionary pattern failed

      No, the evolutionary pattern did not fail. It's still there. But what we now see is that, superimposed on that pattern, is a second pattern, in which certain sequences seem to jump lineages.

      So what do scientists do? They say: OK, we see clear evidence of longitudinal inheritance patterns, but there seems to also to be evidence of sequence transfer that is not longitidinal: what additional mechanism might be responsible for this pattern?

      Just as discovering that what you thought was a single text is in fact a palimpsest in which a second, fainter, text is discerned at right angles to the first, does not justify ignoring the content of the first text you first assumed was the only text. Rather, you must now account for the second text.

      And several mechanisms have been discovered for this "HGT" - including viruses, and other symbiotic mechanisms. These are not "fairy tales" - they were hypothesised mechanisms now actually supported by good data.

      and so evolutionists must turn to some complicated set of known and unknown mechanisms. HGT has been a popular go-to explanation.

      It's not an "explanation" at all. It is simply an addition to the model - the tree still works, but we add to it some cross-branch links at the genetic level (not the phenotypic level, interestingly, and suggestively). The "explanation" part lies in hypotheses to account for those cross-branch links.

      Viruses are one.

      But of course HGT itself must have somehow been created by evolution.

      This betrays your muddled thinking. Whatever mechanisms lead to cross-lineage transfer of genetic material certainly must have a cause. That cause might be another organism - e.g. viruses, that themselves evolve, or it might be some discrete event (like one cell ingesting another without killing it, so that hencefore the two reproduce in tandem, each offspring containing the offspring of the other). Or it could be the evolution of an actual mechanism for horizontal transfer because this bestows some reproductive advantage. Sexual reproduction, for instance, is a kind of HGT - recombination moves material from one gamete to the other, where each are from slightly different lineages.

      So evolution created those incredible mechanisms when then produced evolution.

      You are equivocating, as usual, with the very word you accuse evolutionists of equivocating with. "Evolution" in the sense of something that "creates" is not the same as "evolution" in the sense of something that is produced. Both are poor usages anyway.

      Many things result in HGT, and the transferred material may itself produce phenotypic effects that are subject to selection. Moreover, selection can operate at above population-level, and so populations that contain organisms in which HGT mechanisms are present may prove more adaptable because they have an additional source of genetic variance and thus are less likely to go extinct. In other words, organismic features that promote variance in offspring may be selected for at population level.

      This is complicated, sure, but biologiy is a complex science, and this is a perfectly valid and testable hypothesis. Shapiro has been at the forefront of some of these ideas.

      With evolution the absurdity continues.

      What continues is your blinkered commitment to not understanding it. And for someone with your background there is no excuse.

      Delete
    39. No excuse:

      Genetic exchange in Salmonella

      Norton Zinder and Joshua Lederberg

      J Bacteriol. (1952) 64: 679–699

      Delete
  9. What scientists don’t do, or at least very rarely do, is knowingly misrepresent science. It’s a nice way of saying scientists don’t lie. It is unacceptable in science. In other fields lying may be routine.
    ...
    Evolution is often considered part of science but truth telling is one of their differences. As with politics, lying is fundamental to evolution. Evolutionists lie without even realizing it. They argue strenuously there is no lie—right after telling a lie.

    Does anyone else read this and think of thylacines?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Cornelius is right, we must tell it like it is: Cornelius was lying.

      This from Bob's link to Wesley Elsberry:

      Then there was the ID conference in San Francisco where Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter, the “expert” involved in the antievolution shenanigans in Roseville, CA, presented the wolf and thylacine as identical twins separated at birth argument. His visual aid, handily printed in the proceedings, consisted of two images side-by-side. On one side, you had the usual painting of two thylacines in color. On the other, you had the same painting, mirrored horizontally, and desaturated. Yep, you just could not tell the difference between the wolves on one side and the thylacines on the other. Uncanny, even.

      At least, none of the ID attendees cottoned on. It wasn’t until I pointed out the problem to Paul Nelson that the ID community had notice of it.


      But Cornelius writes:

      Been there, done that. As I have said many times, I don't want to call anyone a liar. I give the benefit of the doubt, but one also must tell it like it is. At some point, the stack of misrepresentations of the science gets too high.

      Indeed, we must tell it like it is: Cornelius faked a picture of wolves to make them look like thylacines.

      Delete
    2. Well, faked a picture of thylacines and called it a picture of wolves.

      Oh boy.

      Cornelius - did you actually make the reversed image yourself, or did you just not check its source? If the latter, what was the source?

      Delete
  10. Are you capable of any logic at all? First you say there is no gradualism.

    The painful truth is that the predicted gradualism in the transitions from one species to another is nowhere to be found.

    I just presented several papers and links that show it is found in many places. So you're lying, poorly.

    You have nothing to rebut, except a claim that *anatomical brain sizes* have no effect on *mental function.* To claim that *anatomical brain sizes* have no effect on *mental function* is not evidence that *gradualism does not exist.* Even if you were right (you're not) gradualism still exists in the fossil record.

    Heck, even if smaller brained individuals were SMARTER, it wouldn't matter. Gradualism still exists in the fossil record. Your *SPECULATION* about function is a separate subject. Do you understand that?

    So, if brain size means *nothing*, then why has it been *gradually*, continuously increasing for 4 million years, as the papers I linked to show?

    If this brain size increase was *cough* the result of a magic puff, or many puffs, of smoke, representing some invisible spook's plan, then why does this invisible spook *gradually* increase brain size, if it's meaningless? Why doesn't the invisible spook just leave humans with brains as small as Homo habilis, or early Dmaniis Homo erectus? What's with bigness then?

    I thought intelligent design implied *PURPOSE*. If brain size increase means nothing, what's the *PURPOSE* of your invisible spook making brains get bigger *very gradually for 4 million years*???

    I can predict your response: evasion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps big brains were God's curse of Eve - ensuring that the female pelvis would frequently prove too small for safe passage.

      Delete
  11. As some hinted here fossils in this place or that are not evidence for the claimed process of evolution.
    Fossils are just snapshots of data at a moment in time.
    Any connection is unrelated to biology but related to geology.
    However seeming reasonable, fossils in sequence strata are not biological evidence for evolutionary (ToE) ideas.
    Its just a line of reasoning to see connections.

    Fossil evidence is not biological evidence upon reflection.
    only the sequence of the fossils gives the proposed evidence for change between them.
    The sequence is entirely about geology and the sequence is not about biology.
    Then one introduce the sequences are just from flow events within some episode of deposition.

    ID folks too quickly accept geology claims about accuracy in dating fossils.
    This trips them up.

    However still logically fossils are not biological evidence for evolution.
    Even if they accurately showed biological evolution between some fossil creature.
    Its not biology but something else.
    A major flaw in logic for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RB -

      Fossils are just snapshots of data at a moment in time.

      True enough. You kinda have a point. But you can hardly say fossils have nothing to do with biology.

      It's true that a fossil is just an individual snapshot - like a photograph of a person does not show how the grew from a baby to an adult. But if you put enough snapshots together you can see patterns. You can see developmental change. And the more snapshots you have, the clearer that will become.

      Moreover, some thoeries (is, Toe) actively predict the existence of certain fossils. Then, when such fossils are unearthed, they can act as excellent supporting evidence for that theory.

      It is also worth noting that the genetic record also creates a tree of life. This surely must count as biological evidence? And it is heartening to note how closely the ToL from the fossil record and the ToL from the genetic record overlap. It all adds to the great convergence of evidence that is important for supporting theories.

      Delete
    2. Even if the fossil record shows gradualism, does it show one species gradually changinh into another? Everyone agrees that species can change over time. But the question is whether they can change into a different species. In the example of cave bears sited above, some authorities consider Ursus Denegari an ancestor of Ursus Spelaeus, and some consider it part of the same species. Ursus Spelaeus is nknow to have undergone changes in morphology in response to changing environments, but it didn't change species.

      Delete
    3. Accroding tot he Wikipedia article, Ursus Savini is considered an ancestor of the Modern Brown Bear, not the Cave Bear. And Ursus Minimus is vry similar to the modern Asian Black Bear. It would be classified as a Black Bear if it wasn't for the timing.

      Delete
    4. I"m a little confused. According to Wikipedia, Ursus Minimus and Ursus Etruscus showed up in the fossil record at the same time. But Ursus Etruscus evolved from Ursus Minimus, so how is that possible?

      Delete
    5. nat -

      Even if the fossil record shows gradualism, does it show one species gradually changinh into another?

      Imagine you have an island. On this island live bats. You do a dig and unearth fossils of creatures who lived 10 millions years ago with exactly the same characteristics as the bats, except they were ground-dwellers. They had claws and legs instead of wings. They did not have a bat's telltale ears.

      Would this be enough to demonstrate the modern bats evolved from them?

      If not, imagine you found more fossils from 5 million years ago. They show a creature which appears to be an intermediary between the two. The arms are fully webbed to the body, the overall shape is more aerodynamic, and it has a primitive version of the bat's ears.

      Is THIS enough to demonstrate that bats evolved from small, ground-dwelling mammals.

      So then you discover more fossils, and more...

      I'm sure you get the picture. The point is: when is enough? How many fossils does it take before we can safely conclude that bats evolved from your fossilised ground-dwelling rodents? Because to a person who is determined to deny this claim, no evidence would be enough. They could still deny this claim, even if you had a fossil or every year over the last ten million showing this progressive change.

      Delete
    6. nat -

      I"m a little confused. According to Wikipedia, Ursus Minimus and Ursus Etruscus showed up in the fossil record at the same time. But Ursus Etruscus evolved from Ursus Minimus, so how is that possible?

      I'm no expert on bears, but this sounds exactly the sort of confusion that would (and does) occur given constant evolution. Fossils do not come out of the ground with labels on them. Much blood sweat and ink is spilled in determining the species of each fossil - is this a juvenile bear, or the adult of a bear species which is small (for example)?

      Nor are there necessarily clear distinctions between closely related species. Whether Ursus Minimus was an ancestor or sister species to Ursus Etruscus is, I am sure, extremely difficult to determine. Again, this is to be expected given evolution.

      Delete
    7. Its just that every time evolutionists say that they found a series of transitional fossils, it turns out to be very questionable, like with Archaeopteryx. Or the timing is off, like with Tiktaalik or the whales.

      Delete
    8. I'm afraid you'll have to explain what you mean. Why is Archaeopteryx questionable? Why is the 'timing off' for Tiktaalik or whales?

      Delete
    9. Some people question whether archaeopteryx was an ancestor of birds, due to the details of its anatomy and growth rates and such. And tiktaalik cannot be the actual ancestor of tetrapods because the footprints of a fully terrestrial tetrapod older than tiktaalik was found. And they claimed that they found an entire series of whale fossils going from fully terrestrial through to fully aquatic, then they found a fully aqautic whale than some of the semi-aquatic whales.

      Delete
    10. You are confused as to what a transitional fossil is. Think back to our rodent-to-bat example. As life evolves it branches - hence the TOL's tree shape. One species splits into two, each of those species may split again, etc. Of course, many, if not most of those species will go extinct sooner or later. So many of the fossils we unearth on our little island may not actually belong to the single unbroken chain of ancestors which connect our modern bats to our 10MY old rodent. Some (most, probably) will actually be from sister species - ones that branched off somewhere along the line and went extinct.

      Take our 5MY old fossil with its gliding wings and proto-bat-ears. Was this definitely a member of the species that eventually gave rise to bats? Or was it a member of a sister species instead? It doesn't really matter too much either way, because it demonstrates that there were species like it around at the time. It shows that 5MY ago, there were small rodent species with gliding wings and proto-bat-ears.

      Archaeopteryx was indeed probably not a direct ancestor of birds. But it is still a transitional fossil because it shows reptiles were developing avian features. Such species did exist. Does it really matter whether it was a direct ancestor of birds rather than a sister-species to such an ancestor?

      Your argument against Tiktaalik is even weaker. Because besides the same argument at work here too (direct ancestor or sister-species to that ancestor, it is still a transitional fossil), all that the footprints show is that Tiktaalik was not the very first species to climb ashore. But so what? How do we know all tetrapods were descended from the very first species to climb ashore rather than Tiktaalik?

      And your objection to the whales is the weakest of all. I assume you are referring to the recent discovery of a 49MY old whale jawbone in Antarctica? This is just a new discovery. That's all. Despite the ID/C propaganda, this poses no challenge to our understanding of whale evolution. It is the earliest fully aquatic whale yet discovered, that is all. It does not pre-date the semi-aqautic ones.

      Go back to our rodent-to-bat island. Say we have no fossils of when bats first lost their tails. We have proto-bats with tails at the 5MY ago mark, and bats without them at the 3MY ago mark. If someone asked you, you could say as a reasonable guess that bats lost their tails around 4MY ago. But then... oh my goodness... a new discovery: a bat at the 4.5MY ago mark with no tail! The earliest tailless bat yet discovered! It shows your estimate was wrong by a full 500,000 years!

      Has this falsified our entire rodent-to-bat evolution theory? No. It is merely a fossil which has filled in a tiny little gap in our knowledge and is trivially surprising. How stupid would it be for someone to imply that this discovery invalidated all fossils we had found on our bat evolution?

      Delete
    11. Why don't we ever find the real ancestors if they actually existed? We only find side branches?

      Delete
    12. Because the number of "real ancestors" is a infinitesimal proportion of the number of side branches.

      Delete
    13. And if we ever actually did find the 'real ancestors', how would we know it? Since the branching sister species largely outnumber the real ancestors, and given fossil species is unlikely to be a direct ancestor, but it presumably happens some of the time. How would we know? Again, fossils don't come out of the ground with labels on them.

      Delete
    14. If we find something that has the right morphology and the right timing then it might qualify as an ancestor, but that keeps on not happening.

      Delete
    15. There are far more branches that don't lead to species that we know about than branches that do, and of course the vast majority of lineages go extinct.

      So finding a fossilised individual from a population right on one of those branches that did eventually lead to extant populations is going to be very rare indeed. But finding fossils from near neighbouring branches is much more likely (because there are more of those), and we do find a few of those.

      We may even have found a few ancestral fossils, but it's hard to tell from an incomplete picture.

      Imagine a jigsaw puzzle of a winter tree, in which most of the pieces are missing, but there are enough for us to see that it is definitely a picture of a tree, and even to figure out where most of the pieces we do have must fit.

      It will still be difficult to tell which pieces with bits of branch on them represent branches that extent right out to twigs at the edge of the canopy, and, if so, which twigs, and which end a long way in.

      Delete
    16. If we find something that has the right morphology and the right timing then it might qualify as an ancestor

      It could. Or it could be a very closely related sister-species. In the end, does it really matter?

      If aliens arrived on our planet in a hundred million years time and dug back to find today's animals preserved in fossils, do you think they would be able to distinguish a wood pigeon from a dove? Even if one went on to give rise to a line of descendants stretching to a living ancestor a hundred million years in the future, while the other simply went extinct?

      Delete
  12. @ Diogenes the cynic.
    Don't forget to remember the Haeckel's embryos to these IDiots, the most compelling case for evolution, the mother of all the evo-truths

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, did Ernst Haeckel use duplicate images and assert they represented two different organisms?

      You mean like what Dr. Cornelius did, when he used duplicated images of a thylacine and a... thylacine, to compare thylacine and wolf.

      Since, more than 100 years later, Haeckel's blunder/fraud is still your best, favorite and only argument, we shall remind you of Dr. Cornelius' blunder/fraud for another 100 years.

      And don't bring up the textbooks that perpetuate the fraud "down to the present day." That claim is further proof of the dishonesty of creationist authorities.

      From a creationist website, I downloaded a list of supposed "modern day" textbooks that supposedly had Haeckel's fake drawings in them. I got about 9 of those textbooks out of the library, and scanned in their embryo drawings.

      Some textbooks had Haeckel's drawings for historical purposes, but in those cases the text warned the reader that Haeckel's theories were invalid and the similarities exaggerated.

      Other textbooks simply didn't have Haeckel's drawings at all-- they had other embryo drawings, but were falsely accused by the creationists.

      So the "Haeckel textbook fraud" from Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution is further evidence of creationist dishonesty.

      Delete
    2. In some of the textbooks I used to teach from, they didn't have Haeckel's drawings, bu they had close copies, which where just as inaccurate. The real embryos don't look like the drawings. I do believe that Wells made this point. Please correct me If I'm wrong.

      Delete
    3. Oh, I forgot to mention that the textbooks don't talk about how the embryos don't resemble each other earlier in development, and that only some species look alike as embryos. Some look different.

      Delete
    4. Please provide an actual reference for one of these text books with "inaccurate" embryo drawings.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    5. Lazy ex-teacher of biology who never heard of phylotypic stage:

      Oh, I forgot to mention that the textbooks don't talk about how the embryos don't resemble each other earlier in development...

      Delete
    6. Elizebeth:

      The Schreaer and Scholtze book had drawings that a layman or a teenager would say are the same as Heackel's. Same with the Stanley Miller's book. The real embryos don't look like the drawings.

      Pedant:

      If similarities are considered proof of evolution, then differences showed be evidence against evolution. Anyway, the point I was making is that the differences are not mentioned in the textbooks. Why not mention both, and let the students decide for themselves?

      Delete
    7. The Schreaer and Scholtze book had drawings that a layman or a teenager would say are the same as Heackel's. Same with the Stanley Miller's book. The real embryos don't look like the drawings.

      Neither of those references are enough to get me to a relevant text-book. Are the ones you are referring to still in print? Do you have full titles?

      "Similarities" are not considered "proof of evolution", although they might be evidence for common descent. Differences certainly wouldn't be evidence against common descent, any more than differences between adult organisms is.

      Delete
  13. The fossil record certainly does not reveal the gradualism Diogenes adamantly claims that it does. In fact we find,,,

    Science & Human Origins: Interview with Casey Luskin (on the severe and large gaps in the hypothetical human evolution fossil record) - July 2012 - podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-04T09_43_01-07_00

    Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis."
    http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202

    “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
    Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
    (curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

    Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.
    Evolutionist Ernst Mayr

    “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
    Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

    "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001

    Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.
    Evolutionist Ernst Mayr

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As to who is being outright fraudulent with the evidence, evolutionists have a notorious history of severely distorting the evidence to 'shoe-horn' it into there preconceived conclusion of human evolution:

      EVOLUTION FORGERIES (For Human Evolution) - excerpts -
      Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
      Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth!
      Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage!
      http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

      Icon Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Deception - Jonathan Wells - video
      http://vimeo.com/19080087

      Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle - Casey Luskin - September 2011
      Excerpt: Ignoring fraudulent fossils like Piltdown man, the last 50 years have seen a slew of so-called human ancestors which initially produced hype, and were later disproven.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/hominid_hype_and_the_election_050801.html

      “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage
      http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Mans_Earliest_Direct_Ancestors_Looked_More_Apelike_Than_Previously_Believed.asp

      Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how extremely biased evolutionists can be with the evidence to make it fit their preconceived Darwinian worldview
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032597

      Paleoanthropology
      Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
      "Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture."
      http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Paleoanthropology

      Delete
    2. But more importantly, as far as the science itself is concerned, i.e. as far as empirically demonstrating what you claim to be true actually is true, Darwinists have no demonstrated mechanism to account for the large scale change they posit even if the fossil record were to have been found to be gradual:

      More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 9, 2012
      Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
      You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.
      Facing Facts
      But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/

      Delete
    3. So basically, the pathological liars of creationism can point to one real hoax per century for evolutionists: Piltdown Man. That's several hundred frauds per century for creationists, and one per century for evolutionists.

      The rest are all your lies and fabrications. Let's look at BA77's scientific "experts."

      http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Paleoanthropology

      Oh, Conservapedia, the website that is the personal Stalinist gulag of another *LAWYER*, Andy Schlafly.

      Conservapedia, that says the Theory of Relativity was a fraud plagiarized by Einstein and pulled off by the media. Conservapedia, that for years asserted quantum field theory was a hoax. Good thing you trust lawyers instead of experimental evidence.

      Science & Human Origins: Interview with Casey Luskin (on the severe and large gaps in the hypothetical human evolution fossil record) - July 2012 - podcast
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-04T09_43_01-07_00


      Oh, a podcast from another lawyer, Casey Luskin! Luskin, who in his new book, dismisses the intermediate status of Homo habilis on the grounds of Spoor et al. 1994, an article which, if Luskin had read it, actually shows that the one and only *true* Homo habilis fossil they studied, *IS* in fact intermediate in inner ear structure between Australopiths and Homo erectus. And then asserts that Australopithecines did not walk upright, by quote-mining and citing Oxnard 1975, when Oxnard believed no such thing.

      Remember when Luskin said Lucy was the most complete hominid fossil ever found?

      Luskin, who is once again flogging the lie that scientists said Junk DNA = non-coding DNA. Tell that to Jacques Monod.

      Or when Luskin in 2005 said chromosomal fusion causes Down's syndrome, and that a mutant with chromosomal fusion would be non-viable (ignoring massive cytogenetic evidence to the contrary)?

      Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth!

      Funny, the guy who published that paper, Osborn, never claimed it was an ancestor of man, and denounced the imaginative cartoon in the London Daily News. In the whole world, only one scientist (not an author of the article) asserted it was an ancestor of man. Osborn thought it was an ape. When he figured out his mistake, he published a retraction within 5 years.

      What ID proponent has ever retracted a false claim after just 5 years? Never.

      Since we're on the subject of teeth, let's recall Glen Rose Man-- that creationist Carl Baugh found a tooth in a Cretaceous strata and said it was from pre-Flood man.

      1. And the Paluxy manprints, promoted by Henry Morris and A.E. Wilder-Smith and hundreds of creationists since the 1930's till today.

      2. The Freiberg skull made of black coal, and the Calaveras skeleton, all frauds promoted by Henry Morris.

      3. And "Homo phenanthropus mirabilis", the Beria, Kentucky "Manprints" (actually chalk drawings) promoted by A. E. Wilder-Smith.

      4. And Burdick's trilobite/footprint, promoted by A. E. Wilder-Smith.

      5. And many, many other frauds and lies promoted by Henry Morris, A. E. Wilder-Smith and the Institute for Creation Research.

      But William Dembski borrowed his best ideas from A. E. Wilder-Smith, and said Henry Morris was a great man. Yes, they were great by creationist standards: he got away with fraud again and again.

      Icon Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Deception - Jonathan Wells - video
      http://vimeo.com/19080087


      I agree that the subtitle "The Ultimate Deception" is an accurate description of Jonathan "peppered moths don't rest on trees" Well's Icons of Evolution, and indeed his entire career.

      Delete
  14. bornagain77: The fossil record certainly does not reveal the gradualism Diogenes adamantly claims that it does.

    Yet, notably, you didn't respond to the evidence Diogenes cited.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Zachriel, when you are dedicated to cherry pick evidence, one can support anything that they want. This is especially true with fossils. When your field is a mile deep and the size of the earth you've can do a lot of cherry picking. Real science is not clamoring about trying to cherry pick, but to honestly look at what all the contradictory data is telling you.

    After genetic sequencing of the sea squirt was done, it blew away all nice and tidy classification based on morphology. Even the "tree of life" of mammals is showing serious problems. If evolutionists can't even classify living creatures objectively, why should they have any credibility in cherry picking fossils of long extinct creatures?

    Anyone can piece together a scenario that they presume with cherry picked evidence. It's what the stuff that doesn't fit that tells you more. Much more. This is not only true for biology, but every field of science. The stuff that doesn't fit are the golden keys to unlocking greater understanding. In this way, evolution is like a straightjacket for the mind. It is the biological theory of everything, that tells us nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone can piece together a scenario that they presume with cherry picked evidence. It's what the stuff that doesn't fit that tells you more. Much more.

      Really? For a century all creationists asserted that evolution needed a land-animal-to-whale fossil, and its ABSENCE disproved evolution. So they admitted evolutionary theory made specific predictions-- when they thought those predictions were falsified.

      Scientists started discovering a suite of land-animal-to-whale fossils in the 1990's.

      Really? For a century all creationists asserted that evolution needed an insectivore-to-bat fossil, and its ABSENCE disproved evolution. So they admitted evolutionary theory made specific predictions-- when they thought those predictions were falsified.

      Onychonycteris was published in 2005.

      Creationists for decades insisted a turtle with "half a shell" was impossible. So they admitted evolutionary theory made specific predictions-- when they thought those predictions were falsified.

      Odontochelys was published in 2008.

      Creationists for a century insisted that evolutionary theory predicted primitive feathers or "half-feathers." So they admitted evolutionary theory made specific predictions-- when they thought those predictions were falsified.

      Sinosauropteryx was revealed in 1996, Beipiaosaurus published in 1999.

      I could go on and on and on.

      You all say the fossil record is clear, indisputable, objective when you claim evolution is falsified.

      But then you say the fossil record is fuzzy, disputable, subjective when you don't like the clear, indisputable, objective evidence you believed was possible and turned out to be real.

      Delete
    2. According to Wikipedia Odontochelys was a fully formed bat. It could fly.

      Delete
    3. I understand that the problem with turtle evolution was not that the intermediates weren't found, but that they couldn't work. Odonto chylis has ribs like a modern turtle, so it doesn't solve the problem.

      Delete
  16. Baghdad Bob Tedford

    After genetic sequencing of the sea squirt was done, it blew away all nice and tidy classification based on morphology.


    Bob, why do you keep coming back with that same lie after we went over your ignorant misunderstanding of the Ciona intestinalis evolutionary history and genetic evidence in fine detail?

    Do you think lying for Jesus will help you get into heaven?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Continuing with BA77's great scientific citations!

    Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle - Casey Luskin - September 2011

    I agree that Casey "Junk DNA = non-coding DNA" Luskin's entire career is that of a pathetic and quite incompetent liar. He is again flogging the lie that scientists said Junk DNA = non-coding DNA.

    And how about when Jonathan "peppered moths don't rest on trees" Wells and Casey "chromosomal fusion causes Down's syndrome" Luskin got together to promote the lie that all phyla appear for the first time in Cambrian strata?

    Um, what about the half of all phyla that leave no fossils at all? What about all the sponges, cnidarians, worms, chordates, and arthropods in the pre-Cambrian? And long, long after the Cambrian, when the bryozoans, vascular plants and hexapods first appear?

    I will close with "New Guineau Man", an imaginary fossil concocted by creationist Jack Chick and Kent Hovind in Chick's comic book "Big Daddy". Creationists were desperate, desperate to accuse scientists of fraud. So Hovind and Chick invented a non-existent fossil "New Guineau Man" and accused scientists of promoting a fake fossil. It was fake all right-- because creationists made it up.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well Diogenes that is quite a rant of mostly ad hominem attacks!

    As to Darwinists being fraudulent, perhaps sincerely mistaken with the evidence should be a better term to use with their handling of the fossil record, one certainly doesn't have to dig very far,,,, transitional whale fossils?

    Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence (severely misleading fossil revealed)– video
    http://vimeo.com/30921402

    Or perhaps to the proposed dino-bird fossils?

    “The whole notion of feathered dinosaurs is a myth that has been created by ideologues bent on perpetuating the birds-are-dinosaurs theory in the face of all contrary evidence”
    Storrs Olson, the curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History

    The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction. - Storrs Olson

    The Archaeoraptor Fraud of National Geographic Magazine (In 1999)
    Excerpt: "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion." - Storrs Olson
    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/archaeoraptor-fraud-piltdown-bird.htm

    Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video and notes
    http://vimeo.com/30926629

    I could probably go much further with mistakes of Darwinists, but the primary point is that the fossil record has been known for decades, since Gould, to not reveal the gradualism that Darwinism requires!

    "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another."
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager

    "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."
    Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. as to: "Luskin got together to promote the lie that all phyla appear for the first time in Cambrian strata?"

      Hmmm, and yet even some evolutionists agree to the explosive pattern in the Cambrian:

      BioEssays Article Admits "Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion" is "Elusive" Casey Luskin June 24, 2009
      Excerpt: "The reasoning is simple -- as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt.

      "Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ''a major mystery,'' a ''challenge.'' The Theory of Evolution -- exploded again (idofcourse.com)."

      Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin's contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume -- if Victorian fashion dictated -- that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride.

      (Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," BioEssays, Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 (2009), internal citation numbers removed, emboldened emphasis added.)
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater021931.html

      Delete
    2. Wow it takes guts for BA77 to bring up Archaeoraptor!

      Here's a fake fossil that was rejected by Science and Nature, and couldn't get published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, because scientists knew it was fake.

      Xu Xing, genius paleontologist, proved it was fake.

      Creationists turn that story around, and assert that every scientist in the world thought it was real. The only place it could get published was National Geographic, out for money and not peer-reviewed.

      And who is it who suppressed the evidence that Archaeorapter was fake?

      Steven Czerkas, not a PhD, not a professor-- and constantly cited by creationists as their expert to prove that dinosaurs did not have feathers. Czerkas is your guy.

      The guy who proved Archeaoraptor was a fake was Xu Xing, a world-renowned expert in feathered dinosaurs.

      We cite Xu Xing, who said Archaeoraptor was fake. Creationists cite Czerkas, who said Archaeoraptor was real.

      "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record... This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly..."
      Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki


      I don't know this guy Czarnecki, but the links I posted above already prove him wrong, and I could easily list 100 transitional fossils that are Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants.

      But two are relevant here: Beipiaosaurus and Sinosauropteryx, which are intermediates between bird and dinosaur, and which have proto-feathers.

      Delete
    3. Well Diogenes that is quite a rant of mostly ad hominem attacks!

      What do you think Intelligent Design is about? It is not about anything EXCEPT ad hominem attacks. ID is just another right-wing think tank that exists to smear all scientists.

      What do you think Cornelius Hunter does every day? It only takes him five minutes to fake a picture of a thylacine and pass it off as a wolf. The rest of the day: ad hominems.

      Delete
    4. "Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them...

      Then you are liars. You make up your facts.

      1. Is it not true that there do not even exist 40 phyla altogether that leave fossils? Altogether, in all times?

      2. Is it not true that bryozoans appear post-early Cambrian?

      3. Is it not true that vascular plants appear post-Cambrian?

      4. Is it not true that hexapods appear post-Cambrian?

      5. Is it not true that sponges appear pre-Cambrian?

      6. Is it not true that cnidarians appear pre-Cambrian?

      7. Is it not true that urochordates appear pre-Cambrian?

      8. Is it not true that worms appear pre-Cambrian?

      9. Is it not true that echinoderms appear pre-Cambrian?

      Yes, you are lying. Lying through your teeth.

      Delete
    5. Diogenes July 10, 2012 9:15 AM

      [...]

      "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record... This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly..."
      Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

      I don't know this guy Czarnecki, but the links I posted above already prove him wrong, and I could easily list 100 transitional fossils that are Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants.


      The Czarnecki quote is a staple of creationist propaganda. It has its own entry in the Talk Origins Quote Mine Project.

      Apparently it comes from an article in the Canadian news magazine McLeans (not exactly peer-reviewed literature) back in 1981. It's slightly truncated. The full quote reads:

      A major problem in proving the theory has been the "fossil record," the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead, species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God as described in the Bible.

      Unfortunately, Czarnecki somewhat undermines his own credibility by also writing:

      Essentially, Darwin stated that a species evolved by the random mutation of genes, which then produced variants of the original species.

      As the author of the Quote Mine Project notes drily

      The claim that Darwin knew about genes and mutation is news to me, as I'm sure it is to a lot of people.

      Delete
    6. Diogenes:

      I understand that the status of Pre-Cambrian Cnidarians, Urochordates and worms is questionable. I recall Stephen Jay Gould writing to that effect.

      Delete
  19. I fail to see how emotional outbursts and mud slinging is furthering this debate?

    A bit of Creationist, ID or Darwinist mischief does not represent the views, opinions and actions of all its members.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "which are intermediates between bird and dinosaur, and which have proto-feathers."

    proto-feathers?

    Such as this latest example?

    Dinosaur Feather Story Gets Hairy - July 2, 2012
    Excerpt: One will look in vain, though, for veined feathers with barbs and barbules as found in birds. The authors label the structures “type 1 feathers,” meaning single filaments protruding from the skin. They are actually little more than fuzz, barely noticeable in the photos. Co-author Helmut Tischlinger said, “Under ultraviolet light, remains of the skin and feathers show up as luminous patches around the skeleton.” Some, like Brian Switek at Nature News, dub them “protofeathers.” He wrote, Palaeontologist Paul Barrett of London’s Natural History Museum agrees that the structures on Sciurumimus are probably protofeathers. Although additional geochemical work is needed to study the features’ details, Barrett says, the fossilized wisps are very similar to the fuzz seen on other dinosaurs. But he notes that the presence of these filaments among all dinosaurs is “speculation”,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/07/dinosaur-feather-story-gets-hairy/

    Not hardly something to call conclusive evidence Diogenes!

    You say you can list '100 transitional fossils'

    Such as Tiktaalik?

    Tiktaalik - Out Of Order
    Excerpt: One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order.
    http://www.reasons.org/OutofOrder

    Tiktaalik Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - January 2010
    Excerpt: The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat.html

    Three-dimensional limb joint mobility in the early tetrapod Ichthyostega : Published online 23 May 2012 - video with article
    Excerpt: The origin of tetrapods and the transition from swimming to walking was a pivotal step in the evolution and diversification of terrestrial vertebrates.,,, We conclude that early tetrapods with the skeletal morphology and limb mobility of Ichthyostega were unlikely to have made some of the recently described Middle Devonian trackways.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf16z5zDm3A

    New Research Debunks Theory of Prehistoric Tetrapod's Walk - May 2012 - video
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/video.cfm?id=new-research-debunks-theory-2012-05-30

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This following article has a excellent summary of the 'less than forthright' (read very hostile) manner in which Darwinists handle anyone who dares to tell of falsifications to their paltry evidence for 'transitional' fossils:

      Evolutionary Biologists Are Unaware of Their Own Arguments: Reappraising Nature's Prized "Gem," Tiktaalik - Casey Luskin - September 2010
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/evolutionary_biologists_are_un038261.html

      Romer's Gap fossils have not provided transitional forms (for hypothetical fish to land animal) - David Tyler - March 2012
      Excerpt: All the fossil evidence shows discontinuity, but evolutionary linkages are marked (all located within Romer's Gap) that are devoid of supporting data. We are still a long way from a science that majors "on the presence, rather than the absence, of fossil data".
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/03/20/romer_s_gap_fossils_have_not_provided_tr

      As well, there is no evidence that dinosaurs or fish ever 'evolved' from, or to, anything:

      Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes
      http://vimeo.com/30932397

      Darwin vs. the Fossils
      Excerpt: “Over 30 million dinosaur bones and parts, some in excellent states of preservation, have been identified, and although much speculation exists, not a single documented plausible direct ancestor has yet been located,” “All known dinosaurs appear fully formed in the fossil record.” - Dr. Jerry Bergman
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091211a

      Oldest Evidence of Dinosaurs in Footprints: Dinosaur Lineage Emerged Soon After Massive Permian Extinction – October 2010
      Excerpt: The oldest evidence of the dinosaur lineage — fossilized tracks — is described in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Just one or two million years after the massive Permian-Triassic extinction,,,, This fossilized trackway places the very closest relatives of dinosaurs on Earth about 250 million years ago — 5 to 9 million years earlier than previously described fossilized skeletal material has indicated,,, “We see the closest dinosaur cousins immediately after the worst mass extinction,”,,,
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006085311.htm

      The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM

      Delete
    2. But Diogenes what is strange about your responses thus far is that you have not touched on the most crushing thing of all for your position. We can go back and forth all day about the fossil record but as far as empirical science is concerned the fossil record is all speculation as to establishing whether or not the molecular reductionism model posited by neo-Darwinists is adequate to produce extreme plasticity of body-plans. Yet when we test, in real-time, the sufficiency of the molecular reductionism model of neo-Darwinism we come up short by several orders of magnitude, as previously noted by Gauger. And is not only IDists who are saying the modern synthesis is inadequate!

      With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011
      Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html

      Eugene Koonin agrees that the modern evolutionary synthesis (Genetic Reductionism) is devastated.

      The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009
      Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis

      The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011
      Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,,
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

      etc.. etc..

      further notes:

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

      Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

      You simply don't have the substantiating evidence you need to make your case for 'bottom up' neo-Darwinian evolution!

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the link, it proves we win and you lose.

      Dinosaur Feather Story Gets Hairy - July 2, 2012
      Excerpt: ...Palaeontologist Paul Barrett of London’s Natural History Museum agrees that the structures on Sciurumimus are probably protofeathers. Although additional geochemical work is needed to study the features’ details, Barrett says, the fossilized wisps are very similar to the fuzz seen on other dinosaurs. But he notes that the presence of these filaments among all dinosaurs is “speculation”,,,
      http://crev.info/2012/07/dinosaur-feather-story-gets-hairy/


      That's right. Feathers on all dinosaurs is speculation.

      Feathers on many dinosaurs is fact.

      But perhaps you want me to read it as feathers are speculative on every dinosaur.

      Are you unable to read English? Or more likely, trying to trick me?

      There are no 32 species of feathered dinosaurs and counting. Many older than Archaeopteryx.

      There are dinosaur feathers, with a structure unlike any living bird, preserved in amber.

      As for fossils, analysis of keratin peptides have proven that other dinosaur feathers were feathers.

      Moreover, some fossils are so well-preserved that the pigment cells from the feathers are visible, and the color can be reconstructed.

      The structure of the proto-feathers was predicted by Prum before the proto-feathers were discovered in 1996.

      Another prediction confirmed.

      Delete
    5. Tiktaalik again?

      Tiktaalik Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - January 2010
      Excerpt: The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/tiktaalik_blown_out_of_the_wat.html


      This is an absurd argument; it has nothing to do with the anatomical structure of Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik was anatomically intermediate before, and it's anatomically intermediate now. No aspect of its anatomy or intermediate status changed.

      As for the "footprints", new research shows that lobe-finned fishes "walk" on the bottom surface of their pools/tanks on their fins, alternating fins, and making prints like a land animal.

      [A Small Step for Lungfish, a Big Step for the Evolution of Walking. ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2011) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111212153117.htm]

      Moreover, recent research shows that Panderichthys though fully aquatic, had incipient digits. The footprints could be finprints from a lobe-finned fish with incipient digits, like Panderichthys is now known to have. [Primordial Fish Had Rudimentary Fingers. ScienceDaily (Sep. 22, 2008) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922090843.htm]

      Tiktaalik's intermediate properties haven't changed a nudge.

      Neil Shubin predicted he'd find what he found in the strata where he found it. Another confirmed prediction for evolution.

      Meanwhile, what new fossils can you predict with your theory that "it happened by a magic puff of smoke"? What can you predict about a fossil before it's discovered?

      Delete
    6. Diogenes, I disagree with your 'proto-feather' assessment, but let's move on to actual science to see if the neo-Darwinian mechanism you posit is adequate to explain large scale body-plan morphogenesis???

      There is no evidence that eukaryotes ever evolved from prokaryotes;

      Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? - Koonin
      Excerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus.,,, Consequently, the modern-type system for double-stranded DNA replication likely evolved independently in the bacterial and archaeal/eukaryotic lineages.
      http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/17/3389

      Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?
      Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,... Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common.
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?page=1

      Nor is there any evidence that single cells can form anything other than 'simple aggregates':

      "We go from single cell protozoa. which would be ameoba and things like that. Then you get into some that are a little bit bigger, still single cell, and then you get aggregates, they're still individual cells that aggregate together. They don't seem to have much in the way of cooperation,,, but when you really talk about a functioning organism, that has more than just one type of cell, you are talking about a sponge and you can have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cells. So we don't really have organisms that function with say two different types of cells, but there is only five total. We don't have anything like that." - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - quote taken from 31:00 minute mark of this video
      Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ

      More Darwinian Degradation - M. Behe - January 2012
      Excerpt: Recently a paper appeared by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled “Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity” and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times.,,, It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis.
      http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2012/01/more-darwinian-degradation/

      Delete
    7. Nor is there any evidence to suggest such a transition from single cell aggregates to a functioning organism is possible:

      Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
      Excerpt: “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”
      http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

      In fact, 'body-plan' information is not even on the radar scope of reason of the molecular reductionism model of neo-Darwinism:

      Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules - A Whole New Level Of Scarcely Understood Information Is Discovered on The Surface of Cells
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bO5txsOPde3BEPjOqcUNjL0mllfEc894LkDY5YFpJCA/edit

      This 'scarcely understood Information' which would go a long way towards explaining the following:

      How many different cells are there in complex organisms?
      Excerpt: The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the cellular ontogeny of which has been precisely mapped, has 1,179 and 1,090 distinct somatic cells (including those that undergo programmed cell death) in the male and female, respectively, each with a defined history and fate. Therefore, if we take the developmental trajectories and cell position into account, C. elegans has 10^3 different cell identities, even if many of these cells are functionally similar. By this reasoning, although the number of different cell types in mammals is often considered to lie in the order of hundreds, it is actually in the order of 10^12 if their positional identity and specific ontogeny are considered. Humans have an estimated 10^14 cells, mostly positioned in precise ways and with precise organization, shape and function, in skeletal architecture, musculature and organ type, many of which (such as the nose) show inherited idiosyncrasies. Even if the actual number of cells with distinct identities is discounted by a factor of 100 (on the basis that 99% of the cells are simply clonal expansions of a particular cell type in a particular location or under particular conditions (for example, fat, muscle or immune cells)), there are still 10^12 positionally different cell types.
      http://ai.stanford.edu/~serafim/CS374_2006/papers/Mattick_NRG2004.pdf

      Delete
    8. In fact Dr. Meyer's next book is going to be on the sheer inability of neo-Darwinian processes to explain the origination of 'Body-Plan' information from single cells:

      Here is a sneak peek at his forthcoming book:

      Dr. Stephen Meyer: Why Are We Still Debating Darwin? pt. 2 - podcast
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-05-23T13_26_22-07_00


      Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

      Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,

      ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ - Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)

      Epigenetics and the "Piano" Metaphor - January 2012
      Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we're talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components -- tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players.
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/epigenetics_and054731.html

      The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo

      "The Mysterious Epigenome: What Lies Beyond DNA" - May 2012 - podcast
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-05-30T12_57_28-07_00

      Diogenes, it is simply the height of arrogance for you to sit here and declare that your atheistic form on materialistic neo-Darwinism is correct when so many profound questions remained unanswered as to how body-plans are formed in the first place!!

      Delete
    9. BA77:

      Diogenes, I disagree with your 'proto-feather' assessment,

      You tried to trick me by means of a quote mine.

      Evolutionary theory made testable predictions; your occult beliefs make no testable predictions.

      And now we get this:

      With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011
      Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html


      Wow. Scientists cannot fully predict phenotype from genotype! Shocking news!

      Why that would disprove evolution, I don't know; except the trouble for evolution is that BA77 dumps random links from every possible subject, mostly from creationist sources, religious leaders, and known lawyers like Casey "junk DNA = non-coding DNA" Luskin. And I'm supposed to sort through this irrelevant trash.

      Now your theory is that dirt turned into the human genome via a magic puff of smoke.

      Let's suppose your theory is true. You converted me. I'm one of you now. Jesus is Lord. Oh Jesus, I accept you as my savior, please Jesus come back and kill all the scientists.

      I totally believe your hypothesis, it happened by magic. I want Jesus to come back and kill the scientists. I'm one of you now.

      So tell me: if indeed dirt turned into the human genome by magic, how does that help scientists predict phenotype from genotype-- which is the problem addressed in your link?

      Phillip Johnson wrote DOT in 1993. It's 20 years of Intelligent Design now. You people have tens of millions of dollars given to you by a fascist billionaire.

      How much progress have you made on predicting phenotype from genotype-- which is the problem addressed in your link-- assuming your hypothesis that dirt turned into the human genome by magic.

      Delete
    10. Diogenes, it is simply the height of arrogance for you to sit here and declare that your atheistic form on materialistic neo-Darwinism is correct when so many profound questions remained unanswered as to how body-plans are formed in the first place!!

      Sheesh, do you realize how politically correct you sound? "your atheistic form on materialistic neo-Darwinism"!? You sound like some cult member. It's like arguing with a homeless person.

      What is this with the origin of body plans? You falsely asserted, and repeated, that all 40 phyla appear suddenly in the early Cambrian. Half of the phyla don't leave fossils at all.

      So your fact-statements are totally inaccurate, but you pretend like you care about investigating the "profound questions" of the origin of body plans. You don't really care about that, or any other, scientific question. You care about religious hypotheses.

      If you really cared about that scientific question, you would care about factual accuracy. You don't care. You spew one factual falsehood after another.

      Because your belief is, "If science loses, my religion wins," it's in your interest to introduce as many random falsehoods as possible to make the data look random and incomprehensible.

      And back to my analogy: you don't have a coherenet argument. You're like a homeless person pushing a shopping cart, except the shopping cart is full of quote mines, citations to creationists like Casey Luskin and Stephen Meyer, and random mystical-religious links that you fling out randomly.

      Many of your quotes do not mean what you think they mean. But if we can't sort through your quote mines and religious-mystical hyperlinks, well, that proves dirt turned into the human genome by magic.

      Delete
    11. Diogenes, but the whole point is that it is your molecular reductionism model of neo-Darwinism that expected genotypes to produce phenotypes, and it is precisely the fact that phenotypes ARE NOT reducible to genotypes that is producing such headaches for the molecular reductionism model of materialistic neo-Darwinism! Personally, I think a fairly strong case can be made that body-plan information resides on a much higher level, as 'quantum information', rather than it being encoded as classical information on a material substrate such as on DNA:

      Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - Elisabeth Rieper - short video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

      Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA - Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral - February 2011
      http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v2.pdf

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

      Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/29895068

      Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information)- Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video
      https://vimeo.com/39982578

      The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another?
      Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see' and ‘hear' each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1,000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions.,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed.
      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRealBioinformaticsRevolution.php

      Further note:

      The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott
      Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
      http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings

      The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems
      https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y

      Delete
    12. Oh, I should've know we'd get to the quantum mysticism. OOOOGA BOOOGA.

      Sorry pal, I know particle physics. I know mystical garbage when I see it. "Quantum information" is not on a higher level. It's just ordinary quantum information, that's all.

      Putting the word "quantum" in front of every known does not prove spooks exist.

      Your hypothesis does not make testable predictions about observable quantities. Putting "quantum" in front of everything does not make testable predictions. Might impress chicks though-- weird chicks.

      Delete
    13. I'm out of here.

      My PhD was in physics. When people invoke quantum mysticism, I'm nout.

      Delete
    14. Well, Einstein sure seemed to be taken aback by the 'spooky action at a distance' implications of quantum entanglement:

      Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the debate between Bohr and Einstein and the failure of 'local realism', or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality:

      Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

      To bad Einstein didn't live long enough to see the falsification of his hidden variable hypothesis by quantum non-locality:

      Delete
  21. Louis Savain is right.

    Huge differences in cranial dimensions within a species would render the fossil record highly questionable as an explanatory record. It cannot be trusted.
    Neither can genetic similarity be trusted.
    Species is an ill-defined term to begin with.
    According to Evolutionists, different dog breeds would be classified as distinct species if humans had not practiced artificial selection.
    It just goes to show that when Evolutionists don't understand something, the solution is to "patch, sand and paint" over a problem with Darwinism. That'll "fix it".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is you, unfortunately, who "don't understand something".

      Look up "speciation". It is a well defined term.

      Delete
    2. "Species" is an ill-defined term.
      How do Evolutionists test for a "new species"?
      if it preferentially WON'T (not CAN'T) interbreed.
      OR
      if it looks different.
      AND
      sometimes they assume if it looks different, by definition they WON'T or CAN'T interbreed, and therefore it is in fact a "new species".
      This faulty line of reasoning doesn't translate well over into the scope of artificial selection which humans have an extensive track record of.

      Delete
    3. Species is not actually "ill-defined" - it's just that it's a category with fuzzy edges.

      It's no more "ill-defined" than "red" is. We know that something is not-red (green, for instance) but where red stops and orange begins is not a discrete boundary.

      Hence "ring species". Two populations are different species if they do not interbreed. however, "do not interbreed" does not necessarily mean "cannot interbreed" or even "never interbreed". But once two populations cease to interbreed, they will, clearly, evolve and adapt down separately lineages (by definition) and drift alone will mean that over time they will become less similar.

      There is no "fault line of reasoning" here, merely an error on your part, of expecting a categorical distinction when there is something fuzzier.

      There are very few non-continua in nature, above quantum level.

      Delete
    4. "It's no more "ill-defined" than "red" is. We know that something is not-red (green, for instance) but where red stops and orange begins is not a discrete boundary."

      It's not "fuzzy".
      The race is the non-discrete boundary. The discrete boundary is a species. Evolutionists make it "fuzzy" because their criteria for determining whether x is a new species is "fuzzy".
      Provide a credible criteria for "species", perhaps then we can apply that criteria to the historical fossil record and real-time evidence. Until then, we can ignore all the claims of the fossil record (ie: how many "species" there were, how many went extinct, how each "species" is related etc...).

      Delete
    5. The race is the non-discrete boundary. The discrete boundary is a species. Evolutionists make it "fuzzy" because their criteria for determining whether x is a new species is "fuzzy".

      Provide a credible criteria for "species", perhaps then we can apply that criteria to the historical fossil record and real-time evidence. Until then, we can ignore all the claims of the fossil record (ie: how many "species" there were, how many went extinct, how each "species" is related etc...).


      You are confusing "speciation" with "adaptation". That is not very surprising as sometimes the word "species" is used in a longitudinal sense, but when it is, the definition is extremely fuzzy, and not generally used.

      Speciation is essentially a horizontal concept - it refers to the divergence of a population into two separate, non-interbreeding populations. It is not an abrupt process, and sometimes the populations re-join. However, eventually, in many cases, the process becomes irreversible.

      So in both cases, the definition of species is one of a fuzzy category. There are no discrete boundaries between populations at the species level. That is why there is such a thing as "ring species"

      Saying "it's not fuzzy" is simply wrong. An error. Please feel free to ask more questions if you are still unclear.

      Delete
  22. Cornelius, these allegations about the integrity of good scientists are pretty despicable.

    The only equivocation on the word "evolution" is coming from you.

    Scientists who use the word "fact" to describe evolution always, in my experience, state exactly what they mean by "evolution" in the context they are referring to, and also what they mean by a "fact".

    Those who say "evolution is a fact" to mean that the evidence for, for example, common descent of living things from a much smaller ancestral population is supported by overwhelming evidence (which it is), are not simultaneously saying that it is a "fact" the change-over-time (literally "evolution") of those lineages occurred by known Darwinian mechanisms - we know, for instance, that drift is almost certainly as, if not more, important than natural selection.

    Conversely, those who say "evolution is a fact" to mean that Darwinian natural selection has been observed in real time in both lab and field, do not mean, nor imply, that it is a fact that this mechanism is solely responsible for all evolutionary change since we emerged from non-life.

    So do not equivocate, Cornelius, and do not attribute equivocation to writers and speakers who individually use the word "evolution" perfectly unambiguously, by smooshing together the words of all "evolutionists" into one big straw scientist.

    And stop with the calumny too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lizzie, you have to know that this is what Intelligent Design is about.

      Poof! Theory is not a theory. It's all about the ad hominems.

      As you can see in this thread, people hate scientists for a complex of reasons-- insecurity, envy, personal inadequacy, religion, politics.

      Smearing scientists makes them feel better about their inadequacies, which are tied up with religious tribalism: "My religious tribe is morally superior to your religious tribe!"

      So the ad hominems are the whole point of ID.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. EL:

      those who say "evolution is a fact" to mean that Darwinian natural selection has been observed in real time in both lab and field, do not mean, nor imply, that it is a fact that this mechanism is solely responsible for all evolutionary change since we emerged from non-life.

      Then you are arguing from ignorance. Evolutionists define evolution as the mere change over time of gene frequencies in response to skepticism.

      Delete
    4. Hunter:

      Then you are arguing from ignorance. Evolutionists define evolution as the mere change over time of gene frequencies in response to skepticism.

      This is a purely rhetorical argument. There are more extensive definitions of biological evolution in the scientific literature. One only has to look.

      Delete
    5. Pedant:

      There are more extensive definitions of biological evolution in the scientific literature. One only has to look.

      Of course, but that doesn't justify the shell game.

      Delete
    6. EL: those who say "evolution is a fact" to mean that Darwinian natural selection has been observed in real time in both lab and field, do not mean, nor imply, that it is a fact that this mechanism is solely responsible for all evolutionary change since we emerged from non-life.

      CH: Then you are arguing from ignorance. Evolutionists define evolution as the mere change over time of gene frequencies in response to skepticism.


      No, I'm not, CH. The ignorance, I'm afraid, is on your part.

      Evolution can be defined in various ways (as can most concepts) and so, for clarity, it is important that people make it clear which definition they are using when they use it. This avoids equivocation

      "Change in allele frequency over time" is a perfectly good operational definition of "evolution" for specific purposes. As thus defined, it has been observed, in real time, in the lab and in the field. More to the point, if we hone that operational definition to include an adaptive component, we might come up with:

      "change in allele frequency over time that is biased towards phenotypic features that enhance reproductive success in the current environment", that has also been observed, in real time, in both lab and field.

      Darwin's basic mechanism has thus been demonstrated unambiguously to work. In other words, "Darwinian evolution occurs" is a simple fact

      If we use a different operational definition, for example, we define it as: Change in phenotypic features of populations of organism over time down diverging lineages from an ancestral populations then that again is supported by a vast amount of evidence, and is therefore often regarded as a fact

      But there is no equivocation involved unless the same speaker/writer is trying to claim that evidence for one is evidence for the other.

      And, if one speaker/writer is equivocating, by all means cite them and say why. It's this tarring of all "evolutionists" with the brush of "liar" and "equivocator" that is so maddening, especially as you seem to equivocate yourself between speakers!

      Delete
    7. EL:

      CH: So it is not surprising that Moore and Cotner follow this tradition of equivocation. After approvingly quoting Stephen Jay Gould that it would be perverse not to accept the fact of evolution, they next inform the reader that “Most simply, evolution is any change in a population’s genetic composition over time.” [from the cited OP at http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/01/evolution-professors-evolution-is.html]

      EL: But there is no equivocation involved unless the same speaker/writer is trying to claim that evidence for one is evidence for the other.


      Of course that is precisely what evolutions claim.


      CH: Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, …

      EL: And, if one speaker/writer is equivocating, by all means cite them and say why.


      I explained it in the cited OP.

      Delete
    8. CH: Of course that is precisely what evolutions claim.

      Which evolutionist where?

      I'd like to see a single instance of an "evolutionist" claiming that the fact of allele frequency over time is evidence for universal common descent, or that universal common descent is evidence for changes in allele frequency over time.

      Full reference please.

      Ch: I explained it in the cited OP.

      No, you did not. You just played your usual "shell game" - referencing only your own blogs. And when we click on the link - pick up the shell - all we find is more shells.

      Please quote verbatim, with full reference to the primary source, the claim that you say those authors are making.

      Because right now, I see you equivocating, by citing different writers out of context, using the word "evolution" in different senses.

      I do not see any of those writers equivocating.

      Pony up Cornelius. Primary sources please. You know it's the Right Thing To Do.

      Delete
    9. EL:

      I see you equivocating, by citing different writers out of context, using the word "evolution" in different senses.

      So when you point out the equivocation, then the evolutionist blames you of equivocating!


      I'd like to see a single instance of an "evolutionist" claiming that the fact of allele frequency over time is evidence for universal common descent, or that universal common descent is evidence for changes in allele frequency over time.

      Next the evolutionist changes to subject with a strawman. It illustrates how evolutionists argue. They lower the bar for themselves and raise the bar for you.


      Please quote verbatim, with full reference to the primary source, the claim that you say those authors are making.

      On page 2 of *Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science,* Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner write:

      These theories, in the words of the late Stephen Jay Gould, have been “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Evolution is one such theory.

      Definition of Evolution

      Most simply, evolution is any change in a population’s genetic composition over time. There are several key features of this definition:

      1. Evolution is a population-level phenomenon, rather than something that can be measured in individuals. Populations evolve; individuals do not.

      2. Evolution has occurred when *any* genetic change—even something that seems insignificant—happens to any number of individuals in a population.

      3. Evolution can be measured in generational time.

      To appreciate this, consider a population of rock pocket mice living on the lava outcrop in the southwestern United States. At an initial observation, 40% of the mice possessed an allele (or genetic variant) that produces lightly colored fur when inherited from each parent. A few generations later, only 34% of the mice possessed this allele. This change in the genetic composition of the population means that evolution has occurred. For evolutionary biologists, the fact that evolution has occurred is often not as exciting as the questions that arise as the result of this observation. For example, *why* did evolution occur?

      Delete
    10. Cornelius Hunter

      Dr. Liddle: "I'd like to see a single instance of an "evolutionist" claiming that the fact of allele frequency over time is evidence for universal common descent, or that universal common descent is evidence for changes in allele frequency over time.

      Please quote verbatim, with full reference to the primary source, the claim that you say those authors are making."

      CH: "On page 2 of *Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science,* Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner write:


      Cornelius, those passages don't mention universal common descent at all.

      Looks like you've got quite a bit of egg on your face.

      Delete
    11. EL:

      Please quote verbatim, with full reference to the primary source, the claim that you say those authors are making.

      On page 15 of Darwin’s Ghost, Steve Jones, writes that the changes observed in HIV contain Darwin’s “entire argument.”

      Pamela Bjorkman says this:

      So a successful virus would be something like influenza virus, that changes every year. So what it does is it mutates. It makes a lot of different forms of itself. Most of these are completely useless—that is they are defective viruses. But out of the millions and millions of viruses that it makes, one or a few of those will be better, and those will go on and multiply and infect other people.

      That is evolution at work.

      So basically, the viruses make millions of copies of themselves, most of them are worse. They’re making random mutations, random changes. They don’t know beforehand what’s good or what’s bad. The best ones will win out, and those will go on and infect.

      In the same way, people have evolved, but over a much slower time scale. So that they made some changes in their immune system, to keep up with particular viruses and other changes that were actually worse. And the changes that were beneficial gradually win out.

      So in a nutshell, that’s an example of evolution, at play, in your body, that goes on all the time.

      And so I think we need to understand this, because bacteria in particular are able to mutate to get around antibiotics. It’s another example of evolution. We need to understand this, so that we can develop drugs that will actually get around bacteria’s incredible ability to evolve quickly, to get around the drugs we use today. Thank you.


      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/11/pop-quiz-who-believes-and-promotes.html

      Delete
    12. Oops! Still no mention of universal common descent.

      Add on another layer of egg!

      Delete
  23. Hunter: Evolutionists claim the origin of species via evolution is a fact. Then to defend that non scientific claim they switch the definition to changing gene frequencies. Changing gene frequencies is an empirical observation. It is a bait-and-switch for evolutionists to self-righteously defend this as though there was ever any meaning to the claim. It is simply a meaningless statement. It would be like saying it is a fact that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. Of course, everyone knows that it. It is simply a disingenuous, self-serving canard that doesn't advance the debate in any meaningful way.

    Here's an analogy that might help you. Imagine a flat-earther claiming it is a fact. When questioned, he strenuously asserts that it simply is a fact that the field he is standing in is flat.


    A charitable reading of these two paragraphs is that you don't understand how science works.

    The statement about hydrogen and oxygen forming water is a not meaningless. It is a scientific hypothesis formulated and verified in the eighteenth century. By now its verification is beyond a shadow of doubt, so we can say it with certainty. That does not make it meaningless. We teach it in chemistry classes.

    Likewise, a change in allele frequencies resulting from heritable variations and selection pressure (and neutral drift) is not meaningless. This is part of theory of evolution. This outcome is observable and it is observed.

    As to your flat-earther example, that was your once-in-a-lifetime chance to show how science works. And you blew it. It is not difficult to demonstrate empirically that the Earth's surface has curvature. You can measure it without sophisticated equipment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Didn't notice this perl of wisdom in the OP: Evolutionists lie without even realizing it.

    It's not possible for a normal person to lie without realizing it. To lie means to mislead intentionally. How one can do so without realizing it is beyond me. It's an oxymoron.

    I don't know what causes you to write such a thing, but it is sheer nonsense. Your hate of anything evolution turns you into a blowhard.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Richie
    I say under analysis fossils have nothing to do with biological evidence for processes. If one pays close attention or good analysis.

    Your snapshot collection analogy presumes the creature is in a state of growth like a person we photograph now.
    Yet the case with fossils only deals with snapshots of adults.
    Then they draw connections between adults to say the adults grew into each other.
    it is not settled in any way there is a sequence of the creature in question.
    There are other options.
    therefore with other options the use of fossils turns out to be just lines of reasoning and NOT in any way biological evidence from biological investigation.
    Without the geological presumption of sequence there is no evidence of change. No biological evidence of change !
    Therefore fossils are snapshots of biological data points and in no way biological evidence of real or false processes linking these data points.

    Its been a great, funny, logical flaw to ever have included fossils as biological evidence for evolutionary processes.
    Worse for them is how much they persuade themselves by it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RB,,
      There are non adult fossils.

      Delete
    2. My correction of the analogy stands.
      It was tried here to say snapshots of a growing individual means one can say snapshots of fully grown creatures related to each but in different rock strata is evidence for processes of evolution and that there was evolution connecting them.
      In logical analysis here all these snapshots show are fully grown types of creatures.
      Any connection between them is not biological evidence but presumed biological evolution.
      Its just presumed these sequences in rock strata show change and presumed these strata show geological time segregation.
      The fossils say nothing biologically even if they were true representations of this creature in evolved stages.
      Biology can't be done on geology.

      Delete
    3. It is generally assumed different rock strata represents different time periods,as a Yec that is probably controversial. But to say fossils don't provide information and knowledge seems illogical

      Delete
    4. They don't, how do they ?, provide info etc on whether they evolved from/into each other or how evolved!
      Its been a great flaw to use fossils as BIOLOGICAL evidence for evolution or evidence the fossils are related only over time periods.
      Even if all this was true its unrelated to biological evidence.
      its just "evidence" if within accepted presumptions of identity and time.
      I see all the time evolutionists work from a belief the fossil record is biological evidence for conclusions about evolution.
      I'm sure the logic class people could put a name to it.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. People who live in glass houses should not bring up logic. It seems a losing argument for YEC ers

      What in your opinion causes fossil if not a biological form?

      Delete
    7. Vis plastica, velikovskys. Vis plastica.

      Delete
  26. Shell games, anyone?

    Quotes out of context and without references:

    Oh really. So please tell us, what did Marta Wayne *really* mean when she told us that “Evolution is change in gene frequency”? What did Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner mean when they wrote that “Most simply, evolution is any change in a population’s genetic composition over time”? What did Steve Jones mean when he wrote that the changes observed in HIV contain Darwin’s “entire argument.” What did Isaac Asimov mean when he wrote that color changes in the peppered moth prove evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant:

      Shell games, anyone? Quotes out of context and without references:

      How is it that "in their new book *Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science*, ..." is not a reference?

      Delete
    2. It's not a reference because you give neither quotation nor page number.

      Look Cornelius, you are a trained academic. You know how this works.

      Do it right, please. Otherwise we will be tempted to think (indeed I am already tempted to think) you are bluffing.

      Delete
    3. As it happens, the first chapter, containing explanations of the term "evolution" is visible on the Amazon preview page.

      I see admirable clarity, and no equivocation whatsover.

      What is it, specifically, that is bothering you, Cornelius?

      Delete
  27. Veli
    A fossil is a biological entity but just at a moment in time.
    evolution is about time plus creatures changing from this to that.
    Connecting fossils of the creature is being said by evolution to be demonstrating they evolved from each other.
    this because they are different but close. this also because of the claim they are separated by a chunk of time.

    Even if the conclusion was true it still would not be biological evidence.
    If it was not true it would not be a failing of biological evidence.

    Its all just a line of reasoning from data points. the process is not demonstrated by the evidence. only the presumptions force a inference on process.

    In connecting fossils there is no biology going on.
    this because they are just snapshots and thats all.
    Fossilism has wrongly been seen as biological evidence for or aghainst evolutionary biology.
    a great flaw of logic.

    ReplyDelete