Saturday, July 25, 2015

Here is Matt Ridley’s Must Read Article on Climate Science

A Most Dangerous Door

One of the standard defenses of evolution—the Epicurean idea that the world arose spontaneously—is that science is a self-correcting, feedback process and, as such, will always lead to the truth. This is such an ignorant claim it is difficult to know where to begin in rebutting it. First of all, at its best science is a process that takes as input a set of observations and produces as output some generalizations, sometimes called models or hypotheses or theories or laws, about how nature works. A scientist might observe the planetary motions in the sky and hypothesize that the planets travel in elliptical orbits about the Sun. Or a scientist might observe the movement of objects and theorize that the product of the mass and acceleration of an object equals the force applied to it. These are valuable theories that condense a vast amount of observations into simple and useful formulas that can predict future events. But for every one of these successes there are hundreds of failures. Sometimes these failures are rooted out only after decades or centuries of contentious debate with proponents who are convinced they’ve got it right. Indeed, there is no guarantee of a timely resolution of scientific failures. There is no guarantee of a resolution, period. Every engineering student knows that feedback loops do not guarantee accuracy—they don’t even guarantee stability.

Even at its best, science is not guaranteed to produce truth because of some real or imagined feedback process. And the story gets worse in practice because of the many nonscientific influences at work. Scientists have religious, philosophical and political biases as much as anyone else, and too often they are under pressure to conform. Bucking the trend doesn’t usually win the funding grant.

Yet the Warfare Thesis, the myth that in its objective search for truth science is opposed by religion, has persisted and has fueled a strong trend of scientism—the view of science as dispassionate truth giver. It was constructed and promoted by evolutionists to frame the debate in their favor, and it worked.

So the idea that evolution is true because science “says so,” and after all science can’t be wrong, continues to enjoy broad traction. It is for these reasons that Matt Ridley’s brilliant article in Quadrant Online is important. Ridley begins:

For much of my life I have been a science writer. That means I eavesdrop on what’s going on in laboratories so I can tell interesting stories. It’s analogous to the way art critics write about art, but with a difference: we “science critics” rarely criticise. If we think a scientific paper is dumb, we just ignore it. There’s too much good stuff coming out of science to waste time knocking the bad stuff. Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudoscience—homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science. Or so I used to think.

Ridley’s main concern is the highly politicized idea of anthropomorphic global warming (AGW):

Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.

This piece by Ridley is important because it is a cogent and direct challenge to the dominant and damaging ideas of scientism and the Warfare Thesis. And it is an admission that the problem is rather obvious:

This should have been obvious to me. Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.

Ridley has shed the mythology of the objective scientist driven simply by a pursuit for the truth:

Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence.

And Ridley has learned about scientific hegemony:

What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press.

Ridley observes that global warming has now joined this infamous list of dubious yet dangerous sciences:

This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses.

Ridley explains how climate science was hijacked by partisans some 15-20 years ago and since then dogma, not data, has controlled the research:

These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous. Today’s climate science, as Ian Plimer points out in his chapter in The Facts, is based on a “pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored and analytical procedures are treated as evidence”. Funds are not available to investigate alternative theories. Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests or starved of funds; those who take money from green pressure groups and make wildly exaggerated statements are showered with rewards and treated by the media as neutral.

It is not difficult to imagine how this plays out:

Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report. Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover.

Ridley explains that this abuse of science is justified and enabled by the propagation of a false dichotomy that casts skeptics as dangerous or ignorant extremists:

These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely. I find that very few people even know of this. Most ordinary people who do not follow climate debates assume that either it’s not happening or it’s dangerous. This suits those with vested interests in renewable energy, since it implies that the only way you would be against their boondoggles is if you “didn’t believe” in climate change.

And given this false dichotomy, the next step is the vilification of the skeptic in a full-scale demagoguery:

But the commentators ignore all these caveats and babble on about warming of “up to” four degrees (or even more), then castigate as a “denier” anybody who says, as I do, the lower end of the scale looks much more likely given the actual data. This is a deliberate tactic. Following what the psychologist Philip Tetlock called the “psychology of taboo”, there has been a systematic and thorough campaign to rule out the middle ground as heretical: not just wrong, but mistaken, immoral and beyond the pale. That’s what the word denier with its deliberate connotations of Holocaust denial is intended to do. For reasons I do not fully understand, journalists have been shamefully happy to go along with this fundamentally religious project.

And behind all the demagoguery, politics, fallacies and manipulation is just plain old bad nineteenth century science:

Joanne Nova, incidentally, is an example of a new breed of science critic that the climate debate has spawned. With little backing, and facing ostracism for her heresy, this talented science journalist had abandoned any chance of a normal, lucrative career and systematically set out to expose the way the huge financial gravy train that is climate science has distorted the methods of science. In her chapter in The Facts, Nova points out that the entire trillion-dollar industry of climate change policy rests on a single hypothetical assumption, first advanced in 1896, for which to this day there is no evidence. The assumption is that modest warming from carbon dioxide must be trebly amplified by extra water vapour—that as the air warms there will be an increase in absolute humidity providing “a positive feedback”. That assumption led to specific predictions that could be tested. And the tests come back negative again and again. The large positive feedback that can turn a mild warming into a dangerous one just is not there. There is no tropical troposphere hot-spot. Ice cores unambiguously show that temperature can fall while carbon dioxide stays high. Estimates of climate sensitivity, which should be high if positive feedbacks are strong, are instead getting lower and lower. Above all, the temperature has failed to rise as predicted by the models.

Ridley chronicles the long sordid history of manipulating evidence and mindless predictions that, though one after the next turned up false, never mattered and even though they failed ridiculously were used anyway as confirmations of AGW:

Excusing failed predictions is a staple of astrology; it’s the way pseudoscientists argue. In science, as Karl Popper long ago insisted, if you make predictions and they fail, you don’t just make excuses and insist you’re even more right than before.

In the end all of this will ultimately harm science. Its hard won reputation can withstand only so many religious and political intrusions. For Ridley himself, it gets personal:

That complacency has shocked me, and done more than anything else to weaken my long-standing support for science as an institution. … I feel genuinely betrayed by the profession that I have spent so much of my career championing.

But this goes far beyond feels of personal disappointment and betrayal. The consequences are enormous:

None of this would matter if it was just scientific inquiry, though that rarely comes cheap in itself. The big difference is that these scientists who insist that we take their word for it, and who get cross if we don’t, are also asking us to make huge, expensive and risky changes to the world economy and to people’s livelihoods.

Ridley’s article is a must read for anyone who is true to science. But for all of its import, it is only the beginning. Ridley is obviously a discerning man but there has been another misadventure and abuse of science that dwarfs climate science. Virtually everything he points out in this excellent piece could be restated, but to even greater extremes, regarding evolution science.

Ridley was once an AGW proponent who now has pulled himself out of its mire. He has stepped back and now the landscape has become all too clear. It is not that there is no warming, or that carbon dioxide has no effects. That’s hardly the point. The problem is in the misrepresentations of the science, the control of the funding, the publication control and blackballing, the demonization, the false dichotomies, the political intrusions, the dangerous impact on public policy, and so forth. This is not science, it a hijacking of science for nonscientific purposes.

Ridley sees all of this. He sees how it really is, and he doesn’t like what he sees. What Ridley does not yet see is that evolution science is all of this, but on a grander scale. Ridley has opened a door, but he is focusing on the first step. It is a most dangerous door, for behind it are all manner of truths people prefer to avoid.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

246 comments:

  1. Nice article. And it's more than just evolution and climate science that is mired in politics and crackpottery. Other fields of science such as physics are also mired in pseudoscience and politics. Even computer science is stuck in a rut because a man named Turing has been turned into an infallible God. And, of course, don't even mention economics, history and archaeology. Organized religions are no help either. We live in a world of lies. It's all very depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice to see our small Australian magazine reading abroad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It strikes me that Ridleys' blithe dismissal of criticism of GMOs, admittedly on the basis of one stricture concerning their alleged carcinogenic properties all the more remarkable in the light of his cogently-excoriating expose of the corrupt partisans of corporate-driven scientism.

    The mere fact of the US Government's imposition of GMO food products without their being LABELLED as such, on a public that can't afford to buy organic, is surely beyond wicked, and should set alarm bells ringing for those who have been pretty deaf until now.

    You'd think there would be enough information about the modus operandi of Monsanto, alone, for it to be anathematised, particularly, by honest scientists, but the duarchy of Monsanto and Gates... For goodness sake! What gives, Cornelius?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Science progresses by lots of small changes, a few big changes, and the occasional revolution.

    Matt Ridley: Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with {Camille Parmesan's} conclusion

    Except he forgot to bother publishing his faultfinding in a scientific journal for his peers to review (or much of any scientific research for that matter).

    The rest of the article is just the usual rehash. All the original research on climate is found in journals, not editorials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peer review is synonymous with ass review. This is why Thomas Kuhn saw the need for the occasional revolution, to get rid of the ass kissers. All AGW climate scientists are ass kissers.

      Delete
    2. Zachriel,

      Except he forgot to bother publishing his faultfinding in a scientific journal for his peers to review,È

      I'll give you credit for one thing Zachriel, you're consistent. To you the arbiter of truth is peer review. Truth is not its own defence, it needs "peer review".

      Tell me Zachriel, what if Steele put his 'faultfinding' as you like to call it, to peer review and the peers all panned it, would that mean it was untrue?

      "All the original research on climate is found in journals, not editorials."

      Truth is not confined to journals.

      Delete
    3. Nic: To you the arbiter of truth is peer review.

      No, it's just the first step in the process of evaluating the evidence. The point in science isn't to convince the lay public with little background in order to judge, but one's scientific peers. Peer review would help him avoid many of the defects found in his editorial.

      Delete
    4. Zachriel,

      "The point in science isn't to convince the lay public,... but one's scientific peers."

      In today's scientific climate that is akin to preaching to the choir.

      Delete
    5. Nic: In today's scientific climate that is akin to preaching to the choir.

      If you have the scientific evidence, it will get published. Skeptics do publish, but rarely do they have new evidence, and when they do, it's generally tangential.

      Delete
    6. Zachriel,

      "If you have the scientific evidence, it will get published. Skeptics do publish, but rarely do they have new evidence, and when they do, it's generally tangential."

      Who decides whether the evidence is scientific or not,
      and who decides whether it is relative evidence or not?

      Delete
    7. If you have the scientific evidence, it will get published.

      Sorry, but that is simply false. I am for peer review. All in all, it is a helpful process. But only an evolutionist could think this.

      By the way, on a related and relevant note, aside from initial perfunctory responses, the silence is deafening in response to Darwin's God inquiries to the authors and to the JAMA journal about the false claims made in the ASD paper blogged on here:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/06/vaccine-study-finds-no-harmful.html

      It is now pretty clear that there will be no corrections or retractions of that peer-reviewed but erroneous paper.

      Delete
    8. "It is now pretty clear that there will be no corrections or retractions of that peer-reviewed but erroneous paper."

      Cornelius, I just re-read your post and all of the comments. I don't see where you conclusively demonstrated that the paper was erroneous. Maybe you should have brought up your complaint about Inherit The Wind in your note to JAMA.

      Delete
    9. Cornelius Hunter: Sorry, but that is simply false.

      It might be overstated, but scientists love evidence. Are you saying Steele gathered evidence through independent research, but not a single journal would publish his results?

      Delete
    10. Universal common descent is free of evidence, unless you count "it looks like universal common descent to me" as evidence.

      Delete
    11. Zachriel, I am not a scientist --- far from it --- though I do have my name on a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal not so long ago. I helped a real scientist in the process of getter her paper published.

      Her paper was on nothing anyone would think is controversial. She simply did some really thorough studies in marine biology and wanted to publish her findings. Nonetheless, even with so very few people directly invested in her specific topic of study, it was a harrowing experience for her. She told me about the politics of getting published and being very careful not to offend those who have other hypotheses. It was not her first paper, and she is well aware of the pitfalls both firsthand and through her colleagues, being a professor, as well.

      I thought her fears must be exaggerated, so I asked her more details. Unless she was lying to me for some reason, trust me, petty politics, selfishness and money, to name a few, are very much at the roots of peer review, and having a paper rejected purely on those issues is quite normal. And why shouldn't it be? As far as I know, these scientists are all . . . humans! And if that is the case, we can count on them acting like humans. Just what superpowers did you think came with the white coat, Zach???

      Delete
    12. Brent: Her paper was on nothing anyone would think is controversial. She simply did some really thorough studies in marine biology and wanted to publish her findings.

      She had thorough observations in a limited field of interest, but provided no new insights, so it was probably of marginal interest even to the few specialists in the field. Glad it worked out for her, and perhaps her next paper will be of greater impact.

      Brent: it was a harrowing experience for her.

      That's typical of publication.

      The subject, though, was the publication of controversial studies in fields of great interest.

      Brent: As far as I know, these scientists are all . . . humans!

      Of course. Some are open-minded. Some are vain. Some are competitive. Some are lazy. So? Yes, some good papers may not get published, but generally, that is not the case. It has more to do with impact.

      Can you point to a significant paper in climate science, not an editorial or rehash but original research, that was not published by a scientific journal? The problem is that skeptical research has been published, and either shown to be speculative, tangential, or largely refuted by their peers.

      Delete
    13. Nice attempt at a redirect there. My point is that scientific journals and their review procedures are political circuses, even when one would think there would be no reason for it. With climate research and the state funded religion, it must be even more so; we can see a reason for it.

      Your characterization of said paper is incorrect. There are findings that provide great new insights and has potential to change a lot of thinking. I'm reluctant to give any clues that could lead a sleuth to finding the paper in question, so I'll leave it at that.

      Delete
    14. Brent: Nice attempt at a redirect there. My point is that scientific journals and their review procedures are political circuses, even when one would think there would be no reason for it.

      To which we agreed. However, those sorts of barriers are more significant for marginal papers than impactful ones. But we'll await your example of a significant paper in climate science, not an editorial or rehash but original research, that was not published by a scientific journal

      Brent: There are findings that provide great new insights and has potential to change a lot of thinking.

      Of course there are. However, the paper you mentioned was not "controversial" but "thorough", something typical of a young scientist earning their chops.

      Delete
    15. No, we won't await my example. My point stands, and you've agreed. You then lay a canard about more "impactful" papers being less likely to be refused on political or egotistical (protecting the egos of previously published authors) grounds, which is telling for the fact that it is manifestly obvious that the opposite would be true.

      Your attempt at redirect is obvious and shameful. The researcher in question has "earned her chops" years ago, I'd hope, in the likes of Science. But keep living in your fantasy sci-fi world.

      Delete
    16. Brent: My point stands, and you've agreed.

      If you mean we agree that scientist have many types of personalities and motivations, then sure. If you are claiming that significant papers in climate science aren't being published, then you have to provide that evidence. The only paper you mentioned, a paper you won't name, was by your description a workaday product, and was actually published.

      Delete
    17. Zach, you clearly are enjoying the game. You can read the entire article that Cornelius has linked and see the corruption from the perspective of a man who's job it is to know. You claim that for research to be regarded as accurate/significant it must be published, and if it isn't it is inaccurate/insignificant, and then tell me to name papers that aren't published that are significant and accurate. If you try really, really hard, maybe you can see a problem with this, no???

      Delete
    18. Brent: You can read the entire article that Cornelius has linked and see the corruption from the perspective of a man who's job it is to know.

      Most of his journalistic peers disagree. But let's look at specifics.

      Matt Ridley: The assumption is that modest warming from carbon dioxide must be trebly amplified by extra water vapour—that as the air warms there will be an increase in absolute humidity providing “a positive feedback”. That assumption led to specific predictions that could be tested. And the tests come back negative again and again.

      In fact, a wide variety of tests support a climate sensitivity in the range of 2-4°C.

      Matt Ridley: There is no tropical troposphere hot-spot.

      Matt Ridley's statement is too strong. The tropical tropospheric hotspot is due to changes in the lapse rate, and is not a signature of anthropogenic warming, but should occur with warming due to any cause. The evidence has been ambiguous because of the dearth of accurate measurements, meaning that we haven't been able to confirm the existence of the hotspot, not that we can say it doesn't exist. This, of course, has been of great interest to climate scientists, who have continued to study the problem. New evidence has confirmed the existence of the hotspot. See Sherwood & Nishant, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2), Geophysical Research Letters 2015.

      Matt Ridley: Ice cores unambiguously show that temperature can fall while carbon dioxide stays high.

      Sure. There are many factors that affect climate. Indeed, the history of climate change and CO2 allows us to estimate climate sensitivity.

      PALAEOSENS, Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity, Nature 2012: "Over the past 65 million years, this reveals a climate sensitivity (in K W−1 m2) of 0.3–1.9 or 0.6–1.3 at 95% or 68% probability, respectively. The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates."

      Brent: You claim that for research to be regarded as accurate/significant it must be published, and if it isn't it is inaccurate/insignificant, and then tell me to name papers that aren't published that are significant and accurate.

      Not necessarily; but if the so-called scientist doesn't even bother to submit his findings to his peers, rushing to the public for validation, then it undermines his credibility. Nonetheless, we're happy to look at the specific articles, but there never seem to be anything but rehashes of already debunked claims.

      Delete
    19. I'm not so tireless as you. Generally, tirelessness is commendable, but only when applied toward commendable ends, unlike yours. The problem isn't your smarts, so unfortunately it means your ailment is worse. You actually know you are promoting lies. It's sick, Zach. Sick, sick, sick.

      Enjoy your circles . . . small, small circles. And remember what Chesterton said of them.

      Delete
    20. Brent: Sick, sick, sick.

      In other words, you have no argument.

      Delete
    21. In true words . . .

      The arguments are readily available, but your tireless ability to question the unquestionable and try to force a single blog poster to re-argue to the last detail, and then inevitably, when one may put the rest of their life on hold to do it for you (to you?), you'll just go right back to your first argument that was already refuted and start again as if it hadn't been. I've seen it a thousand times, and I'll not play. Enjoy your immoral-liar-head-in-the-sand life. The sad thing is, I think you actually do.

      Delete
    22. Brent,

      We provided several points where Matt Ridley's "brilliant" article is contradicted by the evidence, including a citation to recent findings on climate sensitivity.

      If you had said your time is too limited to continue the discussion, then that would be understandable. Instead, you wrote two posts laden with ad hominem, but without substantive content. Let us know if and when you can continue the discussion.

      Delete
    23. But this is the whole point. You think you've successfully argued against me until I cannot "come up with the goods", while in actuality I've undermined every reason for your confidence in every point you make for global warming. How long will it be before the recent paper you cite is retracted, and reluctantly at that?

      Delete
    24. Brent: How long will it be before the recent paper you cite is retracted

      Well, you could wait for the retraction, or explain why the paper is in error. Otherwise, you aren't making a substantive argument: You're just waving your hands.

      Delete
    25. Yes, I'm waving my hands in a vain effort to get you to acknowledge the plain facts of the hijacking of the climate change lobby "science". You've got your journals; and they are brimming, unfortunately, with false claims relying on massaged data made to fit the models that don't match reality. And amazingly you're just fine with that. My previous comments were not ad-hominem, just a statement of fact that you are not worried about the obvious and chronicled debacle that parades around as a serious endeavor, and to the point of defending it. I am sympathetic though, for when you're already conditioned by a much greater lie that is materialism and naturalism, it must be nothing at all to accept this climate hoax.

      Delete
    26. I will not put my life on hold . . . really, but if you're fascinated by hand waving, I thought I'd treat you to some.

      "Matt Ridley: The assumption is that modest warming from carbon dioxide must be trebly amplified by extra water vapour—that as the air warms there will be an increase in absolute humidity providing “a positive feedback”. That assumption led to specific predictions that could be tested. And the tests come back negative again and again."

      To which you say:

      "In fact, a wide variety of tests support a climate sensitivity in the range of 2-4°C. "

      Pretty damned big wave right there. "Who cares? We have other tests." But that does nothing to the fact that a specific prediction has been dis-confirmed, repeatedly. If the hypotheses is correct, the prediction should be correct. It isn't. You don't even try to defend it. You just say, "Well, look over here." Do you understand now why I say you continually try to redirect???

      And again,

      "Matt Ridley: There is no tropical troposphere hot-spot."

      To which you quote:

      "Matt Ridley's statement is too strong. The tropical tropospheric hotspot is due to changes in the lapse rate, and is not a signature of anthropogenic warming, but should occur with warming due to any cause. The evidence has been ambiguous because of the dearth of accurate measurements, meaning that we haven't been able to confirm the existence of the hotspot, not that we can say it doesn't exist. This, of course, has been of great interest to climate scientists, who have continued to study the problem. New evidence has confirmed the existence of the hotspot. See Sherwood & Nishant, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2), Geophysical Research Letters 2015. "

      In other words, hand wave, promissory note, nothing to see here. It changes nothing to say the effect would occur under any warming. It should be present, but isn't. Excuses for why you haven't found it mean zero.

      And yet again,

      "Matt Ridley: Ice cores unambiguously show that temperature can fall while carbon dioxide stays high."

      And you are forced to agree:

      "Sure. There are many factors that affect climate. Indeed, the history of climate change and CO2 allows us to estimate climate sensitivity."

      But not without adding your own fallacy and this quote to solidify said fallacy:

      "PALAEOSENS, Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity, Nature 2012: "Over the past 65 million years, this reveals a climate sensitivity (in K W−1 m2) of 0.3–1.9 or 0.6–1.3 at 95% or 68% probability, respectively. The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates."

      The hand waving fallacy that claims correlation equals causation, amazingly even in the face of the fact that you slyly tried to appear to agree with, that CO2 can increase without temperatures rising, and even when they are falling. Not to mention the fact that this is speaking of a model that has been, and is presently being, contradicted by unmassaged data and satellite data. But hey, the estimates (derived from obviously false assumptions) are verified by other estimates based on faulty logic. I'll give it to you Zach, all you are missing is any facts. But you've got some pretty big hands.

      Delete
    27. Brent: Pretty damned big wave right there.

      Um, in the same post, we provided a citation to a recent paper estimating climate sensitivity from paleoclimatic evidence.

      Brent: In other words, hand wave, promissory note, nothing to see here.

      Again, we provided a citation to current science supporting the claim, while also explaining why Ridley's statement was incorrect even before the latest findings.

      Brent: The hand waving fallacy that claims correlation equals causation, amazingly even in the face of the fact that you slyly tried to appear to agree with, that CO2 can increase without temperatures rising, and even when they are falling.

      Of course temperatures don't move monotonically with CO2 levels. That's because there are many things that can affect the Earth's mean surface temperature, such as changes in solar irradiance, orbital changes, changes in atmospheric content, volcanism, continental drift, albedo, even the occasional cosmic impact.

      Delete
  5. "One of the standard defenses of evolution—the Epicurean idea that the world arose spontaneously—is that science is a self-correcting, feedback process and, as such, will always lead to the truth."

    Maybe I missed something, but who is saying that science will always lead to truth? This article starts with this false statement and then proceeds to knock it down.

    As Gordon Mulling would say: "... an obvious red herring led away to a strawman distortion in pursuit of a turnabout accusation;..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh, Mapou with his pearl of wisdom.

      Yet, I don't see anyone refuting my statement. I know that you have the attention span of a squirrel, so I will repeat it.

      Who claimed that science will always lead to the truth? Since this entire article is based on this premise, I think that it is a fair question.

      Delete
    2. If your science is not after the truth, than it's obviously crap. You people should get back into your den of lies and deception and leave the rest of the world alone.

      Delete
    3. William,

      "Who claimed that science will always lead to the truth?"

      This is just a really weird question. I can't give a name of anyone who made that statement definitively. However, one is safe in assuming acquiring truth is the main objective of all who practice science in its various forms. If they were not expecting to discover truth about the objects of study one would forced to ask why are they doing it?

      Delete
    4. This is just a really weird question

      It is also the usual "oh my, whatever are you talking about?" question. Carl Sagan was perhaps the most famous evolutionist to make the claim that science is a "self-correcting" process whereas religion is a static dogma, but it didn't stop with him.

      Delete
    5. Cornelius Hunter: Carl Sagan was perhaps the most famous evolutionist to make the claim that science is a "self-correcting" process whereas religion is a static dogma, but it didn't stop with him.

      If science is self-correcting, it means it makes wrong turns that need correcting.

      Delete
    6. If science is self-correcting, it means if it makes wrong turns they will be corrected.

      Delete
    7. Maybe I missed something, but who is saying that science will always lead to truth?

      Einstein and Pauling, for two:

      Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, “Science is the search for the truth.”

      “But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.” Albert Einstein

      Delete
    8. If science is self-correcting, it means it makes wrong turns that need correcting.

      Zachriel puts his foot in his mouth one more time. How do you tell a wrong turn from a correct one if you are not after the truth?

      Science simply uses reality as a critic. That's how it knows whether or not it makes a wrong turn. Reality is the truth.

      As far as determining how many demons Zachriel is harboring, I'm sure we can get to the truth by one means or another. Where is the Spanish Inquisition when we need it?

      Delete
    9. Louis Savain: How do you tell a wrong turn from a correct one if you are not after the truth?

      Science is after the truth, meaning valid generalizations concerning observable phenomena. It works because it assumes that all generalizations are tentative, and continually tests those generalizations.

      Louis Savain: Science simply uses reality as a critic. That's how it knows whether or not it makes a wrong turn.

      Generalizations are generally wrong in some aspect or another, so scientific conclusions are only approximations.

      Delete
    10. So now, science is only about tentative generalizations? Aside from the fact that this is a damn lie, how do you know that a generalization is tentative? It's because you know that inductive conclusions are not always true. The truth is always there as a guide. It's all about truths and lies.

      Again, I strongly disagree with the wild and stupid claim that science is only about generalizations. If I have a theory that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, I can falsify it simply by taking a rocket to the moon and observing the moon up close. Where is the generalization in that?

      The truth is that we are all scientists. We are constantly making assumptions about reality and looking for ways to either corroborate or dismiss them.

      Another truth is that Zachriel is an ignorant jackass just like all the other dirt worshippers. LOL.

      Delete
    11. Louis Savain: So now, science is only about tentative generalizations?

      It's always been about tentative generalizations matches to observations. However, some findings are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

      Delete
  6. Joe, if you can't discern the difference between your two quotes and the first sentence in this article, then you are even thicker than I previously thought. I will use smal words so that, hopefully, you can keep up.

    It is accurate to say that the goal of science is to ascertain the "truth". It is completely different, and completely wrong, to say that science will always lead to "truth"

    Cornelius: "
    It is also the usual "oh my, whatever are you talking about?" question. Carl Sagan was perhaps the most famous evolutionist to make the claim that science is a "self-correcting" process whereas religion is a static dogma, but it didn't stop with him."


    I am not arguing about the self correcting claim. The self correcting nature of science can easily be observed. Unfortunately, some people use this fact as an argument against science.

    I was questioning the statement that science claims that it will always lead to the truth. I am sure that some scientist, somewhere, may have made a statement such as this, but it is definitately not something held by more than a fraction of one percent of scientists.

    So, how does knocking down a false claim about science advance your argument? That would be like me saying that all IDists are mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, offensive morons just because one of them (Hi Joe) is. We both admit that this would be an indefensible extrapolation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William,

      "It is completely different, and completely wrong, to say that science will always lead to "truth"

      Then why should anybody believe life arose spontaneously from non-life and began to evolve and continues to evolve?

      Evolutionists always assert the truth of evolution based on the science. Now you're arguing against the idea science will always lead to the truth.

      This is a bizarre line of reasoning to say the least.

      So, I ask you again, if science does not always arrive at the truth, why should I believe evolution to be true?

      Delete
    2. William Dickshaker- You are nothing but an imbecile and pathological liar. That is why you hide behind multiple sock puppets.

      Science should always lead to the truth- always- or else it isn't science.

      Delete
    3. Nic: Then why should anybody believe life arose spontaneously from non-life and began to evolve and continues to evolve?

      Science tends towards accurate statements about nature. There is tentative evidence that life arose spontaneously on Earth, the history of biological evolution is strongly supported, while the continuing evolution of life is observed.

      Delete
    4. There is tentative evidence that life arose spontaneously on Earth

      No, there isn't any such evidence. You are lying, again.

      Delete
    5. Nic: "So, I ask you again, if science does not always arrive at the truth, why should I believe evolution to be true?"

      Science is a continuous process. As such it will never reach an ultimate "truth" I don't believe that evolution as we currently understand it is completely true, so why should I expect you to? But it is the best explanation that we currently have to explain the evidence.

      Joe, don't your knuckles get scraped from dragging on the ground?

      Delete
    6. No one said anything about "ultimate truth". Obviously you have other issues.

      William's brain hurts from sitting on it all the time.

      Delete
    7. Science is a continuous process. As such it will never reach an ultimate "truth"
      And how do you know this to be true? Do you know it through science or are you inspired by a legion of demons like Zachriel?

      Delete
    8. I don't believe that evolution as we currently understand it is completely true, so why should I expect you to? But it is the best explanation that we currently have to explain the evidence.

      Don't use the pronoun 'we'. You don't speak for me and for a lot of other people. You speak only for a minority sect, the Darwinists. The rest of us have more than two neurons between our ears.

      Delete
    9. Virgil the sock: "No one said anything about "ultimate truth"."

      Really? This is from the first sentence of the OP:

      "...will always lead to THE truth."

      What "truth" are we talking about here?

      Delete
    10. Louis Savain: Do you know it through science

      Actually, it's definitional. Scientific conclusions are held tentatively.

      Delete
    11. Zachriel: Louis Savain: Do you know it through science

      Actually, it's definitional. Scientific conclusions are held tentatively.


      And who died and left you or anybody else with the authority to define what science should be after? I got news for you. You don't own science, jackass. The fact is that science is a search process. And if you are searching, it is because you know there is something to find. That something is truth. As a Christian, I believe in the Christian advice "search and you shall find".

      I perfectly understand the motivation of the Darwinist liars in this discussion. You jackasses are simply trying to put a monkey wrench in every argument against your stupid dirt-worshipping religion. And then reality comes, kicks you in the ass and eats your lunch.

      Delete
    12. What "truth" are we talking about here?

      The reality behind whatever is being investigated.

      Delete
    13. Zachriel,

      "Science tends towards accurate statements about nature. There is tentative evidence that life arose spontaneously on Earth, the history of biological evolution is strongly supported, while the continuing evolution of life is observed."

      What evidence is there that life arose spontaneously? In what way is the history of biological evolution strongly supported, and how is continuing evolution observed?

      Delete
    14. Nic: What evidence is there that life arose spontaneously? In what way is the history of biological evolution strongly supported, and how is continuing evolution observed?

      We might be moving too far from the original point.

      Your original comment was along the lines of "If science doesn't always lead to 'truth', then why believe anything science says". The reason we trust science is because it has a track record of ever closer generalizations about empirical phenomena. If we look at the scientific process, we can see this is because all claims are considered tentative, and subject to continual verification, such as by looking for exceptions, or edges where the generalization breaks down.

      Delete
    15. William,

      "Science is a continuous process. As such it will never reach an ultimate "truth" I don't believe that evolution as we currently understand it is completely true, so why should I expect you to? But it is the best explanation that we currently have to explain the evidence."

      Is that because there is no ultimate truth or is it because science is inadequate in obtaining truth?

      If you don't believe evolution as we presently understand it is completely true how can you then say it is the best explanation currently available?

      I must say you have a very strange way of reasoning.

      Delete
    16. Zachriel: Actually, it's definitional. Scientific conclusions are held tentatively.

      Not true. Only tentative conclusions are held tentatively. Most conclusions are either right or wrong. As explained above, we had all kinds of hypotheses about the surface and composition of the moon. We now have proven conclusively that most of them were wrong.

      We know the difference between a tentative conclusion and a final conclusion because we know when we find the truth. If a conclusion is tentative, it's because we haven't found the truth yet.

      Delete
    17. Zachriel,

      "Your original comment was along the lines of "If science doesn't always lead to 'truth', then why believe anything science says"."

      Not at all. My original comment was; 'So, I ask you again, if science does not always arrive at the truth, why should I believe evolution to be true?' A very different question.

      "all claims are considered tentative, and subject to continual verification, such as by looking for exceptions, or edges where the generalization breaks down."

      So, if ALL claims are considered tentative why is evolution a fact?

      Delete
    18. Nic

      So, if ALL claims are considered tentative why is evolution a fact?


      That evolution has occurred - the changes in morphology and branching patterns of species over deep time - is an empirically documented scientific fact. The theory of evolution that explained the mechanisms which produced the documented fact of evolution is considered tentative and subject to modification pending the introduction of new evidence.

      Do you really not understand the difference?

      Delete
    19. That evolution has occurred - the changes in morphology and branching patterns of species over deep time - is an empirically documented scientific fact.

      Do not ever tell me again that these comments are not valuable. Evolutionists really do say these things.

      Delete
    20. ghostrider,

      "That evolution has occurred - the changes in morphology and branching patterns of species over deep time - is an empirically documented scientific fact."

      And this proves evolution how?

      Delete
    21. And this proves evolution how?

      Science doesn't "prove' things. The empirically observed changing and branching patterns of life over deep time we see in the fossil and genetic records are there whether you call them evolution or Swiss cheese. The patterns need an explanation. Science has one, a good one too. What do you have that explains the patterns better?

      Delete
    22. Cornelius Hunter

      Do not ever tell me again that these comments are not valuable. Evolutionists really do say these things.


      Of course scientists say these things. Why shouldn't they? The facts have been empirically verified 100X over. You can see the evidence yourself in any of thousands of natural history museums worldwide. You can read about the evidence in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers. You can learn about the evidence in virtually every top college and university.

      Are you really going to claim the fossil record over deep time doesn't exist? That all of geology and paleontology and the physics of radiometric dating is wrong?

      Delete
    23. Ghost: Science doesn't "prove' things.

      Darwinists should stop repeating this crap because it's crap. Maybe this is true of your science, which explains a lot. But my science proves things all the time. Science is essentially hypothesis and falsification. Falsification itself is a proof. But science can also prove things directly. For example, it proved that the earth is not flat and that the moon is not made of cheese and that AIDS is caused by a viral infection. Causality is an age-old principle in science. Try it sometimes.

      The empirically observed changing and branching patterns of life over deep time we see in the fossil and genetic records are there whether you call them evolution or Swiss cheese. The patterns need an explanation. Science has one, a good one too. What do you have that explains the patterns better?

      Are you kidding me? The empirically observed patterns in the geological and fossil records are precisely what one should expect from intelligent design over time. A mostly nested hierarchy of designs is exactly what happens when humans design things over long periods of time. It follows naturally from the reuse of existing designs via design inheritance. This is so true and so powerful that modern software engineering has adopted this method for programming. It's called object oriented programming and is based on class hierarchies.

      In fact, as an ID proponent, I have been predicting for many years that the genome must be organized strictly as a hierarchy. Guess what? This is exactly what it being discovered lately. Anybody who believes that nature could have used random mutations to create such complexity is out of his or her mind, or a liar. With thousands of genes and millions of base pairs, the combinatorial explosion would create a search space so huge that having a computer many trillions upon trillions of times the size of the universe would be no more useful than having a Commodore 64 computer from the 80s.

      Delete
    24. Loius Savain

      Anybody who believes that nature could have used random mutations to create such complexity is out of his or her mind, or a liar.


      Which one are you? Science doesn't say random mutation created complexity. Science says the ongoing process of random genetic variations filtered by feedback selection and retained as heritable traits created complexity. The concept has been demonstrated countless times with genetic algorithms that model natural evolutionary processes. There is a whole field of scientific research on the topic.

      Delete
    25. Are you really going to claim the fossil record over deep time doesn't exist? That all of geology and paleontology and the physics of radiometric dating is wrong?

      And this will go on, and on, and on. This is it, this is how evolutionists argue. They insist evolution is a fact, and when questioned it's the old shell game again about dating rocks. I guess evolutionists don't get enough dates ...

      Delete
    26. ghostrider,

      "The concept has been demonstrated countless times with genetic algorithms that model natural evolutionary processes."

      And whence come the algorithms? .

      Delete
    27. ghostrider,

      "The empirically observed changing and branching patterns of life over deep time we see in the fossil and genetic records are there whether you call them evolution or Swiss cheese."

      I'm curious, what changing patterns?

      Delete
    28. ghost: Which one are you? Science doesn't say random mutation created complexity. Science says the ongoing process of random genetic variations filtered by feedback selection and retained as heritable traits created complexity.

      More lies. Science does not say any such thing. Science does not talk to you or anybody in particular. Science is just nature, the ultimate true critic. It is you Darwinists who keep saying this crap about RM+NS bringing about the wide diversity of life on earth. But guess what? It's all crap. This is about the most stupid search mechanism in existence.

      The concept has been demonstrated countless times with genetic algorithms that model natural evolutionary processes. There is a whole field of scientific research on the topic.

      This is a damn lie. I am a software engineer who has experimented with GAs over the years and guess what? They are only good for trivial toy problems. The moment you increase the number of variables beyond toy stuff, the combinatorial explosion kills them dead. This is the reason that GAs are not used in anything serious. What is even worse is that GAs are optimizers and, as such, suffer from the well known problems of optimizers such as getting stuck in local minimas or maximas. If this is what you guys think created the diversity of life on earth, you are stupider than I thought. But we all knew that.

      You are all a bunch of pseudoscientists, impostors and jackasses. You are traitors to your own species. You should be tarred and feathered and paraded down the street for everyone to see.

      Delete
    29. Cornelius Hunter

      And this will go on, and on, and on. This is it, this is how evolutionists argue. They insist evolution is a fact, and when questioned it's the old shell game again about dating rocks. I guess evolutionists don't get enough dates


      OK, so you really do think all of geology and paleontology and the physics of radiometric dating is wrong. Of course you can't say why they are wrong or offer any alternative explanations for the huge amounts of data we have.

      Will you please at least answer how old do you think the Earth is and how did you determine the age?

      Delete
    30. Nic: So, if ALL claims are considered tentative why is evolution a fact?

      "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'." In particular, we observe evolution, and have strong evidence of branching descent.

      Louis Savain: A mostly nested hierarchy of designs is exactly what happens when humans design things over long periods of time.

      Human artifacts do not generally form into a single nested hierarchy, but can be arranged in many equally logical classifications.



      Delete
    31. Zachriel: Human artifacts do not generally form into a single nested hierarchy, but can be arranged in many equally logical classifications.

      Nor does "universal common descent" form into a single nested hierarchy. Major animal groups can be rearranged by assigning different branching narratives involving convergent evolution, trait reversals, losses, incomplete lineage sorting etc.

      It doesn't matter how many times you falsely claim that common descent forms a 'single objective nested hierarchy', it won't make it true.

      I lost count how many times you've been debunked on this point. Yet you keep repeating it.

      Delete
    32. Louis,

      "Louis Savain: A mostly nested hierarchy of designs is exactly what happens when humans design things over long periods of time."

      Zachriel: "Human artifacts do not generally form into a single nested hierarchy, but can be arranged in many equally logical classifications."

      Louis, don't bother to put the wear and tear on your keyboard talking to Zachriel about nested hierarchies, you may as well talk to your wall.'

      Him and I have had a couple of go rounds on this subject and I have repeatedly demonstrated human artifacts can and often do form 'nested hierarchies'. He simply refuses to admit the obvious.

      Delete
    33. Nic, IMO, Zachriel is a demon possessed psycho, a lying jackass. I just enjoy rubbing his nose in his own feces. He's lucky this is not my blog. I would have booted his ass out a long time ago and as unceremoniously as possible.

      Delete
    34. Louis,

      "Nic, IMO, Zachriel is a demon possessed psycho, a lying jackass. I just enjoy rubbing his nose in his own feces. He's lucky this is not my blog. I would have booted his ass out a long time ago and as unceremoniously as possible."

      Zachriel is not demon possessed, or psychotic, he is simply misled. It would be better for all if you could understand that. Maybe your input would have a more positive effect if you took a more relaxed approach.

      Delete
    35. Nic: Maybe your input would have a more positive effect if you took a more relaxed approach.

      Are you kidding me? And how's that working for you, Nic? IMO, we are at war and you Christians are losing the war against the Darwinists. They don't hesitate to take advantage of your misplaced charity. I don't think it's a good idea to allow the enemy to come in your backyard to insult your intelligence. There must be a price to pay. I would never tolerate lying jackasses like Zachriel and ghostrider on my blog.

      Delete
    36. lifepsy: Major animal groups can be rearranged by assigning different branching narratives involving convergent evolution, trait reversals, losses, incomplete lineage sorting etc.

      While there are always ambiguities, there is only one basic pattern, unlike artifacts.

      Nic: I have repeatedly demonstrated human artifacts can and often do form 'nested hierarchies'.

      They can, but usually don't. Try it. How would you arrange books? Or vehicles?

      Delete
    37. Zachriel,

      "They can, but usually don't. Try it. How would you arrange books? Or vehicles?"

      I told you a long time ago I am not going down that rabbit path anymore. I've been over it with you at least three times. Enough is enough. You will never admit you're wrong no matter how many times I prove my point.

      Delete
    38. Louis,

      "Are you kidding me? And how's that working for you, Nic?"

      I don't worry about that. I put the information out there and let the Holy Spirit do the work.

      "They don't hesitate to take advantage of your misplaced charity."

      And how exactly do they do that?

      "I don't think it's a good idea to allow the enemy to come in your backyard to insult your intelligence."

      If they want to play that game they are not insulting my intelligence, only demonstrating the lack of theirs.

      "There must be a price to pay. I would never tolerate lying jackasses like Zachriel and ghostrider on my blog."

      They pay the price every time. Cutting them off because you don't agree with them is hardly productive. If they become abusive that's a different story.

      Delete
    39. Mapou: "IMO, we are at war and you Christians are losing the war against the Darwinists."

      I would laugh if I didn't know that you were serious. Did you know that it is attitudes like yours that enabled the inquisition, witch burning, the holocaust, etc.

      Lighten up a bit. Nic and I and Cornelius may snipe at each other, but I also think that we would enjoy an evening together over a few beers. I think that I would even enjoy Joe's company (in limited quantities).

      But people like you (and The Whole Truth on my side) really scare me. Most of us can talk about evolution and ID, disagree with each other, and still enjoy the process. For whatever reason, you are incapable of enjoying a good discussion. Frankly, I feel sorry for you, because you are missing out on a lot.

      Delete
    40. William,

      "Lighten up a bit. Nic and I and Cornelius may snipe at each other, but I also think that we would enjoy an evening together over a few beers."

      Hear, hear! Though I think I might just go with Coke. Never developed a taste for beer. I would buy a few rounds though.

      Delete
    41. Zachriel: While there are always ambiguities, there is only one basic pattern, unlike artifacts.

      No. there isn't "one basic pattern" as major animal groups could be moved out of their nested groups if need be. You're in denial. Simple as that.

      Delete
    42. Zachriel: They can, but usually don't. Try it. How would you arrange books? Or vehicles?

      Easily. Vehicles could be objectively organized in a nested hierarchy based on traits most important to functionality.

      Practically all designed objects fall into nested hierarchies.

      Evolution, however, does not necessarily produce a recognizable nested hierarchy, due to potential large amounts of trait reversals and convergences.

      Z, all of your nested hierarchy arguments are failures.

      Delete
    43. Zachriel: They can, but usually don't. Try it. How would you arrange books? Or vehicles?

      Easily. Vehicles could be objectively organized in a nested hierarchy based on traits most important to functionality.

      Practically all designed objects fall into nested hierarchies.

      Evolution, however, does not necessarily produce a recognizable nested hierarchy, due to potential large amounts of trait reversals and convergences.

      Z, all of your nested hierarchy arguments are failures.

      Delete
    44. Nic: I told you a long time ago I am not going down that rabbit path anymore.

      You couldn't sustain your position previously. There's no reason to think you could do so now.

      lifepsyop: No. there isn't "one basic pattern" as major animal groups could be moved out of their nested groups if need be.

      Let's try a few examples. Based on the entirety of observable traits, which one doesn't belong; mouse, lion, trout?

      lifepsyop: Vehicles could be objectively organized in a nested hierarchy based on traits most important to functionality.

      Or you could arrange them by maker, model, and year; which happens to be the most usual classification.

      lifepsyop: Practically all designed objects fall into nested hierarchies.

      Anything can be arranged into nested hierarchies. While biological organisms naturally group into a specific nested hierarchy, which is confirmed by genetics; artifacts can nearly always be grouped into many different, equally reasonable, classification schemes.

      lifepsyop: Evolution, however, does not necessarily produce a recognizable nested hierarchy, due to potential large amounts of trait reversals and convergences.

      You seem to be a bit behind in your scientific reading.

      Darwin: It is incredible that the descendants of two organisms, which had originally differed in a marked manner, should ever afterwards converge so closely as to lead to a near approach to identity throughout their whole organisation.

      In other words, you can still discern the nested hierarchy. For instance, the hydrodynamic shape of whales superficially resembles that of fish, but a close examination reveals the much closer affinity of whales to mammals.

      Delete
    45. I have heard IDists say that ID predicts the observed hierarchy. The designer uses and modifies existing designed structures to optimize it for the environment. Much in the same way the the internal combustion engine has "evolved" over time.

      But, how does ID then explain convergent evolution? Why didn't the designer re-use perfectly good fins and tails of fish when designing the whales? Why did he find it necessary to use different plans for the wings of birds, bats, pterodactyls and butterflies. It seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to completely re-design something that he has already designed and functions quite acceptably.

      Maybe he just likes to experiment.

      Delete
    46. "Common design" is about the lamest excuse the IDers could come up with to hand-wave away the fossil record phylogenies. For one thing "common design" doesn't explain the timeline of when we see morphological changes over the 650 million year history of multi-cellular animals. Why do we have ichthyosaurs appearing in the fossil record from approx. 250 MYA to 90 MYA, then disappearing, then have the almost identically sized and shaped dolphins appearing 20 MYA?

      Why do we have pterosaurs from 265 MYA to 66 MYA, then gone, then bats from 45 MYa?

      Why do we have evidence of certain insects that evolved wings, lost them, then re-evolved them much later?

      Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects

      The ID-Creationists have no answers, only weak-sauce excuses.

      Delete
    47. Zachriel: Let's try a few examples. Based on the entirety of observable traits, which one doesn't belong; mouse, lion, trout?


      Absolutely ridiculous. Based on the entirety of observable traits, which one doesn't belong: Station wagon, pickup-truck, skateboard.

      Again, your argument is a total failure, Z. But you can't afford to admit it.

      Delete
    48. William,

      "Why did he find it necessary to use different plans for the wings of birds, bats, pterodactyls and butterflies."

      Think about it. Are these creatures the same? Obviously not. Do they fly in the same manner for the same purpose? No.

      Any good designer works to fit the needs of his creation. Would a butterfly be successful using the wings of a bat? Would a bat be successful using the wings of a bird? No, all three creature are unique in their functions and therefore unique in their design.

      The same is true for fish and whales.

      You really have to give your arguments more thought.

      Delete


    49. Nic: "I told you a long time ago I am not going down that rabbit path anymore."

      Zachriel: "You couldn't sustain your position previously. There's no reason to think you could do so now."

      There is a difference between me not sustaining my argument and your utter refusal to admit you are wrong. The latter is very much the case in this instance.

      Delete
    50. Nic

      Would a bat be successful using the wings of a bird? No


      Why not? What flight maneuver can a bat's wing do that a bird cannot?

      Your "common designer" is just more empty bluster.

      Delete
    51. Nic

      The same is true for fish and whales.


      Why did the "common designer" make fish with spines and vertical tails that move side to side while cetaceans have spines and horizontal tails that move up and down? Why not use the same "common design" chassis for both?

      Evolution has a good answer. It's because whales are evolved from land mammal quadrapeds whose spine flexes vertically when they walk or run.

      What's your better explanation Nic?

      Delete
    52. ghostrider,

      "Why not use the same "common design" chassis for both?"

      Are fish and whales the same animal? Do they function in the same way?

      Why does man make fixed wing machines and rotary wing machines? Why not just use the same design for both? Why put tracks on some machines and wheels on others?

      A different method of propulsion is hardly a slam dunk argument for evolution. Really, do you give any thought to your arguments?

      Delete
    53. ghostrider,

      "Why not? What flight maneuver can a bat's wing do that a bird cannot?"

      Why not try doing a little research into the flight of birds as opposed to the flight of bats? After you have done that if you still want to ask such an asinine question, I guess that's your prerogative.

      Delete
    54. Nic

      Are fish and whales the same animal? Do they function in the same way?


      They live and swim in the same environment. Why not a common swimming design?

      Why not try doing a little research into the flight of birds as opposed to the flight of bats?

      Wimpy evasion of question noted. You made the claim the wings had to be different, you back it up.

      The simple fact is you have no explanations or evidence for any of your idiotic "common designer" claims Nic. None. But if you want me to keep embarrassing you with your inability to answer I'll be happy to oblige.

      Delete
    55. ghostrider,

      "It's because whales are evolved from land mammal quadrapeds whose spine flexes vertically when they walk or run."

      From what did land mammal quadrapeds evolve?

      Delete
    56. lifepsyop: Based on the entirety of observable traits, which one doesn't belong: Station wagon, pickup-truck, skateboard.

      We'd probably place the skateboard as the outgroup, but according to your previous criterion, the pickup would be the out-group. Now, continue with your classification scheme. We don't need a exhaustive detail, but at least a few levels and examples from each level.

      Delete
    57. ghostrider,

      "They live and swim in the same environment. Why not a common swimming design?"

      Helicopters and jets fly in the same environment, why not the same propulsion design?

      Logic isn't your forte' is it?

      "Wimpy evasion of question noted. You made the claim the wings had to be different, you back it up."

      Afraid of what you will find? You should be, it'll make you out for the fool you are.

      Delete
    58. Nic

      From what did land mammal quadrapeds evolve?


      From the cynodont therapsids in the late Permian.

      When and how did the Common Designer design and manufacture them?

      Helicopters and jets fly in the same environment, why not the same propulsion design

      Helicopters and jets have very different flight envelopes requiring different propulsion mechanisms. Fish and whales have the same swimming envelope which can be accommodated with the same propulsion mechanism.

      Is there any scientific or technical topic you're not ignorant in?

      Afraid of what you will find?

      I already found you're a blowhard who can't back up his Creationist claims about wings. Not much of a surprise really.

      Delete
    59. lifesyop,

      "Again, your argument is a total failure, Z. But you can't afford to admit it."

      I've had this discussion with Zachriel at least three times and shown him clearly to be wrong each time. He will simply refuse to look at the facts. He is firmly convinced nested hierarchies and homologous systems are the irrefutable arguments for evolution.

      You will go around with him on this forever and get absolutely nowhere. I have told him I will no longer discuss the subject with him again for that reason. I simply refuse to waste my time on it any longer. I would advise you to do the same.

      Delete
    60. Nic: "Why does man make fixed wing machines and rotary wing machines? Why not just use the same design for both? Why put tracks on some machines and wheels on others? "

      Fixed wing and rotary wing machines have completely different capabilities. If you don't believe me, try hovering a 747.

      But what advantage does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark? Or the rear legs of a seal? They are all solving the same problem (propulsion through water). The only difference is the time of origin. If the designer economises by using and modifying existing designs, the argument IDists use for nested hierarchies, why did he not use it here, and in thousands if other examples?

      Delete
    61. ghostrider,

      "Helicopters and jets have very different flight envelopes requiring different propulsion mechanisms. Fish and whales have the same swimming envelope which can be accommodated with the same propulsion mechanism."

      Nice try, but your not even in the ball park, in fact your not even in the same town as the ball park.

      Jets and helicopters share the same flight environment. Jets can travel at greater speeds and higher elevations but they must fly within the same environs as the helicopter in order to achieve those speeds and those altitudes.

      You really are quite pathetic at critical thinking. It is really quite sad to watch you stumble about like this.

      How about we say a Cessna and a helicopter? Or are you still going to argue they fly in different environments?

      Nic:"Afraid of what you will find?"

      "I already found you're a blowhard,..."

      Yep, sounds like you're too cowardly to look as you're terrified at what you might find. Wouldn't want to mess up a good argument with facts, would we?

      You're hilarious. Call me a blowhard all you want, but how pathetic do you have to be to be afraid to learn something because it might upset your little world?

      Delete
    62. Nic: "Jets and helicopters share the same flight environment. Jets can travel at greater speeds and higher elevations but they must fly within the same environs as the helicopter in order to achieve those speeds and those altitudes."

      Comparing a jet (or a Cessna) to a helicopter is like comparing a jellyfish to a shark. Totally different capabilities. But you can't say the same thing when comparing sharks and dolphins (and plesiosaurs). The back ends (tails, limbs) of these animals are equally good at propelling the animal forward through the water. Why didn't the designer economize, as IDists propose, and use the same design? There appears to be an inconsistency here.

      Delete
    63. Nic

      Jets and helicopters share the same flight environment.


      But they don't share the same flight envelope. Due to the laws of physics rotorcraft have physical limitations on their forward speed that jets don't. There's no physical reason fish and whales couldn't be "designed' with the same tail orientation, either vertical or horizontal. You really are quite dense.

      How about we say a Cessna and a helicopter? Or are you still going to argue they fly in different environments?

      Last time I checked a Cessna can't hover. Maybe they can in your Creationist la la land.

      Call me a blowhard all you want

      You're a blowhard who lied about having a timeline and a mechanism for your "common design". Every post you evade highlights that fact more.

      Delete
    64. ghostrider,

      "There's no physical reason fish and whales couldn't be "designed' with the same tail orientation, either vertical or horizontal."

      And how do you know this? Do you know every aspect of the design of fish and whales and what is necessary for their respective survival in their environment? Are you an expert in underwater propulsion?

      The answer to both is a resounding NO, so that being the case I would think you are, as usual, speaking, about that which you know nothing. At least you have that in abundance if nothing else.

      And you have the nerve to call other people blowhards.

      "Comparing a jet (or a Cessna) to a helicopter is like comparing a jellyfish to a shark."

      Not really, but if it suits you go ahead. I know you will argue whatever I say. You will never admit you're wrong.

      Nic: "How about we say a Cessna and a helicopter? Or are you still going to argue they fly in different environments?"

      ghostrider: "Last time I checked a Cessna can't hover. Maybe they can in your Creationist la la land."

      Wow!! You are probably the densest individual I have ever encountered. Just like you don't know the difference between a disease and the symptoms of a disease, you don't seem to understand the difference between flight capabilities and the environment in which those capabilities may function. Stunning stupidity, really.

      Let's see if we can make this easy for you. Environment; the surroundings in which flight capable vehicles may operate. Flight capability; the nature of flight possible by a flight capable vehicle.

      Do you understand the difference?

      So no, a Cessna cannot hover, and I never said it could and to anybody who can comprehend simple English, I never even implied it could. But a Cessna's inability to hover is not due to its environment, it is due to the parameters of its flight capabilities.

      "You really are quite dense."

      Seriously, for you to question the intelligence of anyone is simply unbelievable after the display of abject ignorance you just put on

      Delete
    65. LOL! Poor Nic. Called on his bluff and has to resort to huffing and puffing to save face. Doesn't understand the meaning of cognitive dissonance. Doesn't understand the difference between a flight environment and a flight envelope. Can't explain why his imagined "common designer" didn't use common design. Doesn't have a timeline or a mechanism to explain the phylogenetic tree patters in the fossil and genetic records.

      You are the most entertaining Creationist chew toy I've seen for some time though. :).

      Delete
    66. Nic, I wasn't trying to ridicule you, but I am curious about the inconsistency in the ID argument. On on hand they say that the nested hierarchy can be explained by the economization and optimization of design utilized by the designer. A reasonable statement. But then it fails to explain the fact that nature is full of examples of the so called designer not availing himself of the same economization and optimization of design that is used to explain the nested hierarchy.

      If you have an explanation, I am all ears.

      Delete
    67. ghostrider,

      "Doesn't understand the difference between a flight environment and a flight envelope."

      Is there really no end to your stupidity? I was talking about flight environment and you come back with flight envelope. Of course the flight envelope is different for a helicopter and a Cessna, but that was not the question. The question was why two modes of flight propulsion; which would result in two flight envelopes; within the same environment. My gosh, you are clueless.

      Delete
    68. William,

      "But then it fails to explain the fact that nature is full of examples of the so called designer not availing himself of the same economization and optimization of design that is used to explain the nested hierarchy."

      A reasonable question which is a nice change of pace from ghostrider.

      As human designers are not required to use economization and optimization at all times in the design process, why would it be necessary for God to do so?

      I'm curious, do you realize your constant use of a 'heads I win, tails you lose' form of debate? It's not just you, but all evolutionists.

      This is a case in point. You use economization and optimization of design as an argument for the truth of evolution, and then turn around and point to a lack of same as proof there is no designer. Do you really not see the erroneous nature of that style of debate?

      Delete
    69. "A reasonable question which is a nice change of pace from ghostrider."

      Sorry Nic, but I am not GhostRider. I have admitted to having two posting names (WS and Acartia), and never tried to hide it.

      "As human designers are not required to use economization and optimization at all times in the design process, why would it be necessary for God to do so?"

      It's not. But then the argument that the nested hierarch can be explained by this is a bogus argument. In short, you are saying that because the designer can do whatever he wants, he is, de facto, the best explanation for whatever we have observed and may ever observe. Not exactly a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis.

      Delete
    70. Nic

      The question was why two modes of flight propulsion; which would result in two flight envelopes; within the same environment.


      Because one of those modes of propulsion, turning rotor blades, has a physical restriction on performance which won't let you reach the same places in the flight envelope (i.e supersonic) a jet engine can. There is no such physical restriction of performance in the orientation of a fish / whale tail..

      Sorry you're too dense to understand that simple point but I suppose being dense is a prerequisite for being a Creationist.

      Delete
    71. ghostrider,

      "There is no such physical restriction of performance in the orientation of a fish / whale tail."

      That does not answer the question, as is usual with you. The question is why could there not be by design two forms of locomotion within the same environment, in this case water? Because you don't think it is necessary is not an answer, it's merely your opinion.

      So, are you going to provide an answer or not?

      Sorry you're too dense to grasp the simplicity of the question, but I'm getting used to that.

      Nic: "From what did land mammal quadrapeds evolve?"

      ghostrider: "From the cynodont therapsids in the late Permian."

      And from what did cynodont therapsids evolve?

      Delete
    72. Nic

      The question is why could there not be by design two forms of locomotion within the same environment, in this case water?


      Sure there could be 2 or 102 different ways. You want to argue "common design" yet when we see obvious cases of no common design you want to hand wave them away. Pretty convenient for you to have a "designer" who only used common design when it looked exactly like what evolution was constrained to use.

      Your 'common designer" nonsense can't be falsified either. It is easy to conceive of things which if found would falsify evolution. There is no conceivable discovery that will falsify "design". One more reason why ID-Creationism isn't science.

      And from what did cynodont therapsids evolve?

      Look it up yourself lazy boy. No more answers until you provide your "common designer' timeline and mechanism for the phylogenetic patterns I provided mine, you welshed on your end.

      Delete
    73. ghostrider,

      "Look it up yourself lazy boy."

      I know what they are supposed to have evolved from, I was not looking for you to educate me. I'm intending to see if you can put 2 & 2 together.

      Delete
    74. ghostrider,

      "yet when we see obvious cases of no common design you want to hand wave them away."

      There is a huge problem in your reasoning. That in itself is not unusual for you, but this problem is glaringly obvious. Common design does not mean same design every time fro every application. A schoolboy can see that.

      I'm wondering if it has started to dawn on you yet why fish and whales have different propulsion systems? I'm thinking it will never happen.

      Delete
    75. "Nic: "I'm wondering if it has started to dawn on you yet why fish and whales have different propulsion systems?"

      You must be smarter than me. Please enlighten me on why a dolphin and a great white shark have different propulsion systems. They both have similar swimming speeds; they both have similar body size and shape; they both swim in the same medium.

      Delete
    76. Nic

      Common design does not mean same design every time fro every application.


      Of course Nic. "Common design" is a catch all meaningless excuse for any possible observation we make. Why don't you tell us why the "designer" only used common design in cases that looked exactly like evolution had occurred?

      I'm wondering if it has started to dawn on you yet why fish and whales have different propulsion systems?

      I already explained why they do Nic. It has nothing to do with function and everything to do with their ancestry. I'm waiting for your bogus ID-Creationist hand wave as to why each must be that way.

      Since you keep cowardly avoiding the question on your 'common design" claims let's narrow the focus. When did this "common design" occur? We have empirical evidence of many different species appearing and going extinct at various times over the last 650 million years. Did the "common designer" stop by every year and tinker with the "designs" to make it look exactly like evolution too?

      Delete
    77. ghostrider: Why don't you tell us why the "designer" only used common design in cases that looked exactly like evolution had occurred?

      Complete nonsense. "Evolution" could potentially look like a million different things and trait assemblages. Evolutionists simply accommodate the observable data and attach a "natural selection did it" narrative.

      This idea that what we find in nature is specifically predicted by universal common descent is a complete myth.

      Delete
    78. ghostrider,

      "I already explained why they do Nic. It has nothing to do with function,..."

      Yes it does. But your little evolutionary mind set will not let you see it because you are stuck in ancestral thinking.

      Delete
    79. Nic: Yes it does.

      What advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark?

      Delete
    80. lifepsyop: "Evolution" could potentially look like a million different things and trait assemblages.

      Not only could, but does. In any case, they form a discernible nested hierarchy. As for the role of natural selection, that can be inferred from the historical record, and that means common descent.

      Delete
    81. lifepsyop

      Complete nonsense. "Evolution" could potentially look like a million different things and trait assemblages.


      No, it couldn't. Finding a population of six-limbed winged horses like Pegasus would not fit the evolution paradigm. Finding viable chimeras between distantly related species (i.e dog-bird hybrids) would wreck ToE too.

      "The designer did it that way because" is a worthless excuse that can be offered for any conceivable find.

      Delete
    82. Nic

      ghostrider,

      "I already explained why they do Nic. It has nothing to do with function,..."

      Yes it does.


      Another unsupported empty claim by Nic. Why couldn't a "designed' dolphin have a vertical tail like a "designed' shark?

      Delete
    83. ghostrider: No, it couldn't.

      We may have read his statement differently. While there are millions of possible evolutionary outcomes, this is only a tiny percentage of "assemblages".

      Delete
    84. BTW Nic I'm still waiting for your "common design" timeline for the last 650 million years. Is narrowing down to one question still too much for you?

      Delete
    85. Zachriel

      ghostrider: No, it couldn't.

      We may have read his statement differently. While there are millions of possible evolutionary outcomes, this is only a tiny percentage of "assemblages".


      Agreed, our answers are referring to two different things and are not contradictory.

      Delete
    86. ghostrider,

      "common design" timeline for the last 650 million years."

      Doesn't involve 650 million years.

      Delete
    87. ghostrider,

      "Another unsupported empty claim by Nic. Why couldn't a "designed' dolphin have a vertical tail like a "designed' shark?"

      Well, isn't this an interesting situation, the brilliant evolutionist ghostrider does not understand the functional difference between whale and fish propulsion. Funny, this dumb creationist does.

      Take a break and think about it a while.

      Delete
    88. Zachriel,

      "What advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark?"

      Think about it for a while, it will come to you. You'll have to shelve your evolutionary mind set though.

      Delete
    89. Nic: Think about it for a while, it will come to you.

      Let us know when you are ready to discuss your views on the subject.

      Delete
    90. Zachriel,

      "Let us know when you are ready to discuss your views on the subject."

      Translation: I have no intention of giving it any thought. I know evolution to be true and I don't want to deal with inconvenient questions.

      Thanks Zachriel, I understand.

      Delete
    91. Zachriel,

      I'll give you a hint; economic.

      Now give it some thought.

      Delete
    92. ghostrider: No, it couldn't. Finding a population of six-limbed winged horses like Pegasus would not fit the evolution paradigm....


      If differently patterned animal traits had been discovered, they would have been absorbed into evolution theory. i.e., hypothetically if certain types of mammals had feathers. This would be rationalized as something natural selection did over millions of years via either convergence or a similar genetic pathways stemming from the 'common ancestor' of birds and mammals.

      This is Evolution theory's power to accommodate. You probably don't understand this because you've never really examined the logic of what evolution actually predicts.

      Thus, ghostrider, your claim that life "looks exactly like evolution" is complete nonsense. Character traits could be patterned in numerous different ways and still "look like evolution", because the theory can potentially accommodate so much through just-so storytelling.

      Ranting about Pegasuses and Centaurs (an common idiotic deflection of evolutionists) will not save you. I know you don't have a real counter-argument.

      Delete
    93. Zachriel: Not only could, but does. In any case, they form a discernible nested hierarchy.

      Which again, means nothing that you want it to, because your nested hierarchy arguments as it pertains to common descent have been refuted over and over again.

      Delete
    94. Zachriel: What advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark?

      Nic: I'll give you a hint; economic.

      What economic advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark?

      Delete
    95. lifepsyop: If differently patterned animal traits had been discovered, they would have been absorbed into evolution theory. i.e., hypothetically if certain types of mammals had feathers.

      Even if there were convergence on some characters, the overall nested hierarchy pattern would still be discernible. It's this pattern that allows us to reconstruct the history, and from that infer the mechanisms of adaptation.

      lifepsyop: Ranting about Pegasuses and Centaurs (an common idiotic deflection of evolutionists) will not save you.

      It's not a rant, but an example of what would not be expected from the evolutionary pattern. How do we know that Centaurs are not vaguely remembered, but actual creatures?

      Delete
    96. Nic

      Doesn't involve 650 million years.


      I didn't ask you for what your"'common design" didn't take Nic. I asked for the timeline of what it did take. Looks like even that simple request is beyond your ability to BS an answer.

      Delete
    97. Zachriel,

      "What economic advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark?"

      You have got to think, Zachriel. You're so entrenched in evolutionary thinking you fail to ask questions and let your mind work for you. You think by rote.

      Delete
    98. Nic

      "What advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark?"

      Think about it for a while, it will come to you. You'll have to shelve your evolutionary mind set though.


      Once again we see Nic do the "wave-your-hands, tap-your-feet, run from the question with no answer" shuffle.

      He's good at it too from all the practice.

      Delete
    99. ghostrider,

      "Once again we see Nic do the "wave-your-hands, tap-your-feet, run from the question with no answer" shuffle."

      The problem evolutionists have, and especially you, is they believe they have all the answers and have lost the ability to think critically.

      If you give this problem just a little thought the answer becomes obvious. Why not give it a try?\
      All you've got to lose is a few presuppositions which are baseless.

      Delete
    100. Zachriel: "What advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark? "

      Asked several times. Never answered.

      Delete
    101. Zachriel: Even if there were convergence on some characters, the overall nested hierarchy pattern would still be discernible.

      The overall nested hierarchy pattern on designed objects is discernible. Your ambiguity lacks any substance.

      It's this pattern that allows us to reconstruct the history, and from that infer the mechanisms of adaptation.

      No, you're just delusional and have come to believe your imagination is evidence. You can't even rise above the level of bald assertion, much less make reasoned inferences.

      Delete
    102. Nic

      If you give this problem just a little thought the answer becomes obvious


      Another evasive non-answer by Nic the master. Still no timeline on his "common design" claims.

      Delete
    103. lifepsyop: The overall nested hierarchy pattern on designed objects is discernible.

      Human artifacts can nearly always be arranged in many different equally reasonable nested hierarchies. You tried it with vehicles, saying to arrange by function. Not only does your single level not constitute a nested hierarchy, but people more often arrange vehicles in another equally reasonable hierarchy; by make, model, and year.

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

      Delete
    105. William,

      Zachriel: "What advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark? "

      "Asked several times. Never answered."

      I suppose by that you imply there is not an answer? Maybe you should think about it as well. As I said, it is quite obvious if you give it some thought.

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

      Delete
    107. Nic: You have got to think

      We're here to learn. What economic advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark?

      Delete
    108. ghostrider,

      "I didn't ask you for what your"'common design" didn't take Nic. I asked for the timeline of what it did take. Looks like even that simple request is beyond your ability to BS an answer."

      I'm just enjoying listening to you whine about it.

      How are you doing on figuring out the functional difference between whale propulsion and fish propulsion? Not very well I bet.

      Delete
    109. Lifesyop,

      "The overall nested hierarchy pattern on designed objects is discernible. Your ambiguity lacks any substance."

      Trying to make Zachriel understand the fallacious nature of his nested hierarchy arguments is akin to nailing Jell-o to a tree. It just won't work. On this subject he is like a bottom weighted punch toy. It matters not how often you knock over, it keeps popping up.

      He's got it in his head that nested hierarchies are the knock out punch of evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    110. Nic

      "What advantages does a horizontal tail fin in a dolphin have over the vertical tail fin of a great white shark? "

      "Asked several times. Never answered."

      I suppose by that you imply there is not an answer? Maybe you should think about it as well. As I said, it is quite obvious if you give it some thought


      Yet another evasive non-answer by Nic the master. Still no timeline on his "common design" claims.

      Run Nic run!

      Delete
    111. Nic: He's got it in his head that nested hierarchies are the knock out punch of evolutionary theory.

      Keep in mind that the phylogenetic tree was the only diagram in Origin of Species. Since then, entire research fields have been developed to unravel phylogenetic relationships based on objective criteria and the nested hierarchy of observable traits. So, yes. It's considered important evidence in biology.

      Delete
    112. Nic: "I suppose by that you imply there is not an answer? Maybe you should think about it as well. As I said, it is quite obvious if you give it some thought."

      Where is a marine biologist when you need one. Oh, wait, I am one. So, would you like to try again? In a water medium, what is the propulsive advantage of a horizontal tail over a vertical one. Before you answer, please be aware that "Flipper" was fiction. Sharks kill dolphins, not the other way around.

      Delete
    113. I think Nic's answer is 'God though dolphins looked cooler with horizontal tails". Or since sharks were around continuously for over 400 million years before dolphins arrived maybe God got tired of looking at the vertical tail. Obviously the vertical tail must have some defects which is why the design changed on the newer models. :)

      Delete
    114. I would as him about heterocercal versus homocercal tails, but I am afraid that Barry Arrington and Gordon Mullings might voice their opinions.

      Delete
    115. Looks like Nic has cut and run from yet another instance where his mouth wrote a check his evidence can't cash.

      That evidence for "common design" is looking better every day. :D

      Delete
  7. Science can only lead to the truth if the people doing the science allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. William,

    PS:How is your assignment on the law and grace and how it applies to man and his relationship with God coming along?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nic, I attempted to reply to you several times on that thread but Cornelius has decided that my comments on that subject are no longer welcome. As this is his blog, I will not attempt to raise the subject here.

      Delete
  9. "So, if ALL claims are considered tentative why is evolution a fact?"

    One of the reasons we know that evolution is more about worldview than science is because it's not defended scientifically (tentatively) but dogmatically.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I told you a long time ago I am not going down that rabbit path anymore.

    When was that?

    I've been over it with you at least three times.

    Citations, please.



    Impatient?

    You will never admit you're wrong no matter how many times I prove my point.

    Citations, please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      Nic: "I told you a long time ago I am not going down that rabbit path anymore."

      "When was that?"

      Pedant, or should I say Zachriel?

      As these comments were directed to Zachrial I'm curious why I am receiving comments from Pedant.

      Or could it be....?

      No, Zachriel wouldn't use multiple names to make it appear he has support from others for his poor arguments. Tell me it isn't so.

      Delete
    2. Nic

      As these comments were directed to Zachrial I'm curious why I am receiving comments from Pedant.


      Because more than one person reads this blog and more than one person has questions about your claims. I too would like to see where you refuted Zachriel on nested hierarchies. Can you point to this place or not?

      Delete
    3. Nic: Or could it be....?

      No.

      Delete
    4. Zachriel,

      Nic:" Or could it be....?"

      Zachriel: "No."

      Good, glad to hear that. Thanks.

      Delete
    5. ghostrider,

      "Can you point to this place or not?"

      Ah, typical ghostrider, cannot comprehend what he reads. What part of my response to Pedant did you not understand? I can type it slower for you if you think that might help.

      Delete
  11. Pedant, or whoever,

    "I too would like to see where you refuted Zachriel on nested hierarchies. Can you point to this place or not?"

    I'm sorry I don't catalogue my discussions on the various blogs I frequent, so I don't actually have a record on which specific articles those discussions took place. There have been three or four instances over the last couple of years. So, if you want to search for them go ahead. Otherwise you will have to take my word for it. If that is not good enough, to put it bluntly, I really could care less, it does not change the facts.

    That so-called nested hierarchies result from human design is pretty much a no-brainer. That is a problem for evolutionists however, as design is anathema to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evolutionists' "nested hierarchy" schtick revolves around the erroneous claim that universal common descent produces a discernible objective Nested Hierarchy (and that designed objects do not). They claim this either through ignorance or deceitful bluffing, as the NH of UCA is propped up by a great deal of subjective interpretation of character traits and imaginary common ancestry narratives that are all susceptible to major revision if necessary.

      For example, the wings of the Megabat group could have been interpreted as evolving independently of other bats and nested closer to primates, which was debated by evolutionists in recent years. Nested groups can be one place today, and somewhere else tomorrow.

      There is nothing objective about the "nested hierarchy of common descent", not in any remotely specific sense.

      Delete
  12. Airtight argument or bluff?:

    I'm sorry I don't catalogue my discussions on the various blogs I frequent, so I don't actually have a record on which specific articles those discussions took place. There have been three or four instances over the last couple of years. So, if you want to search for them go ahead. Otherwise you will have to take my word for it. If that is not good enough, to put it bluntly, I really could care less, it does not change the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedant,

      "Airtight argument or bluff?"

      Neither, just the simple truth.

      Delete
  13. Lifepysop,

    "There is nothing objective about the "nested hierarchy of common descent", not in any remotely specific sense."

    Exactly. Any system of categorization is purely subjective and sometimes completely arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My goodness but you two creationists are some ignorant boobs. Objective best fit for nested hierarchies can be determined using a Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT). Science has been using them for years to determine most likely phylogenetic trees for fossil and genetic data.

      likelihood ratio test

      "The likelihood ratio test (LRT) is a statistical test of the goodness-of-fit between two models. A relatively more complex model is compared to a simpler model to see if it fits a particular dataset significantly better. If so, the additional parameters of the more complex model are often used in subsequent analyses. The LRT is only valid if used to compare hierarchically nested models. That is, the more complex model must differ from the simple model only by the addition of one or more parameters. Adding additional parameters will always result in a higher likelihood score. However, there comes a point when adding additional parameters is no longer justified in terms of significant improvement in fit of a model to a particular dataset. The LRT provides one objective criterion for selecting among possible models. "

      Theobold's "29 Evidences for Evolution" at TalkOrigins explains the objective method in some detail, not that you guys are interested in learning.

      Delete
    2. ghostrider,

      "The likelihood ratio test (LRT) is a statistical test of the goodness-of-fit between two models."

      How did the likelihood ratio test come into being?

      Delete
    3. Nic

      How did the likelihood ratio test come into being


      Is this your new childish evasion / face saving tactic? Ignore the data and ask an irrelevant question to deflect? Pretty weak stuff there Nic, even for a Creationist.

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "Is this your new childish evasion / face saving tactic? Ignore the data and ask an irrelevant question to deflect? Pretty weak stuff there Nic, even for a Creationist."

      I'll take that to mean you do not know, or you do not understand the question. Either way is not good for you.

      It's formation is hardly irrelevant. If you had any capability to think critically you would understand that
      fact.

      Delete
    5. Nic

      I'll take that to mean you do not know, or you do not understand the question.


      Yep, it's Nic's latest childish evasion tactic. Thanks for the confirmation, not that any more was needed.

      Delete
    6. ghostrider,

      "Yep, it's Nic's latest childish evasion tactic. Thanks for the confirmation, not that any more was needed."

      You can't answer the question because you don't understand the question and I'm being evasive?

      You're a real hoot.

      Delete
    7. ghostrider: "The likelihood ratio test (LRT) is a statistical test of the goodness-of-fit between two models..

      As has already been explained over and over again, any designed objects would inevitably fall into a 'best-fit' pattern based on sheer number of traits. You've not advanced your position one bit.

      Theobald's material is well known and has been debunked for years. None of it is particularly compelling.

      Delete
    8. lifepsyop

      As has already been explained over and over again, any designed objects would inevitably fall into a 'best-fit' pattern based on sheer number of traits.


      Let's test your claim.

      Take eight designed items A red wooden cube, a red wooden sphere, a green wooden cube, a green wooden sphere, a red metal cube, a red metal sphere, a green metal cube, a green metal sphere.

      Put them into a best-fit hierarchy and justify your decision.

      Theobald's material is well known and has been debunked for years. None of it is particularly compelling.

      LOL! You didn't even look at the section on objective best fit determination.

      Delete
    9. ghostrider: why would you choose such a simplistic 3-trait group for an analogy to biological systems? Are you that desperate?

      Delete
    10. lifepsyop

      why would you choose such a simplistic 3-trait group for an analogy to biological systems? Are you that desperate


      You told us designed things always produce a "best fit" phylogenetic tree. Yet when I give you a list of designed things you can't do it. Looks like you're wrong again.

      Delete
    11. ghostrider,

      "Take eight designed items A red wooden cube, a red wooden sphere, a green wooden cube, a green wooden sphere, a red metal cube, a red metal sphere, a green metal cube, a green metal sphere."

      "Put them into a best-fit hierarchy and justify your decision."

      Based on what? You're just like Zachriel, no concept that this is purely subjective. It could be based on best fit for colour, best fit for shape, etc.

      You probably have a best fit scenario in mind, but that is purely subjective to you. It might not correspond to the best fit scenario to someone else looking at different factors.

      Why can't you people figure this out? It's so incredibly simple to comprehend.

      Delete
    12. Nic

      You probably have a best fit scenario in mind, but that is purely subjective to you. It might not correspond to the best fit scenario to someone else looking at different factors


      lifepsyop told us designed objects can always be put into a "best fit" hierarchy. I just showed he's wrong. If you want to argue his silly claim take it up with him.

      Delete
  14. Nic: Any system of categorization is purely subjective and sometimes completely arbitrary.

    We can often objectively classify by observable biological traits. For instance, which one doesn't belong; mouse, lion, trout?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zachriel,

      "We can often objectively classify by observable biological traits. For instance, which one doesn't belong; mouse, lion, trout?"

      Well, let's see. They all breathe oxygen, they all have circulatory systems, they all possess a brain, they all have digestive systems, they all possess a genetic code.

      I guess they all belong.

      As I said, subjective.

      Delete
    2. Nic: I guess they all belong.

      Heh. You really think anyone reasonably familiar with the three organisms would be unable to determine which one doesn't belong? Indeed, you can look just at the specific structures you mentioned, and tell the difference.

      Nic: They all breathe oxygen

      Only two with lungs.

      Nic: they all have circulatory system

      Only two with a four chamber heart.

      Nic: they all possess a brain

      Only two with a neocortex.

      Nic: they all have digestive systems

      Two of them have only a single lower jaw bone. Two of them have a complex tongue. Two of them have specialized teeth. Two of them start digestion with saliva. That's just the mouth. We could go further.

      Nic: they all possess a genetic code.

      Two of them share more genes than any other pairing. Two of them have an X sex-chromosome. Two of them have the gene for lactase-phlorizin hydrolase.

      Guess what? It's the same two in every example. You can take almost any structure and do the same. Look at the blood. Look at the eye. Look at the liver. Look at the ear.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRjQDrDnY8

      Delete
    3. "Look at the liver."

      But please don't look at mine.

      Delete
    4. Zachriel: We can often objectively classify by observable biological traits. For instance, which one doesn't belong; mouse, lion, trout?

      Zachriel's perpetual non-argument. We can classify anything by observable traits and identify obvious outliers.

      Motorcycle, Moped, tricycle. Which doesn't belong?

      Delete
    5. lifepsyop: Motorcycle, Moped, tricycle. Which doesn't belong?

      Probably the tricycle. Now, continue with your classification scheme. We don't need exhaustive detail, but at least a few levels and examples from each level.

      Delete
    6. Z, well you have wheel assembly, steering apparatus, structural framing, electrical systems, internal combustion systems, etc. and all of their sub-systems.

      Like I said before, one objective way of classifying these would be by importance of function, i.e. the less important the trait is to overall operation of the vehicle, the further it is nested within more important function hierarchy. Cosmetic-aesthetic design decisions would obviously be the least important.

      Delete
  15. Zachriel,

    Nic: They all breathe oxygen

    Only two with lungs.

    Nic: they all have circulatory system

    Only two with a four chamber heart.

    Nic: they all possess a brain

    Only two with a neocortex.

    Nic: they all have digestive systems

    Two of them have only a single lower jaw bone. Two of them have a complex tongue. Two of them have specialized teeth. Two of them start digestion with saliva. That's just the mouth. We could go further.

    Nic: they all possess a genetic code.


    What is really funny about your response is the fact that you really believe it demonstrates my argument of subjectivity is wrong. Not even close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic: What is really funny about your response is the fact that you really believe it demonstrates my argument of subjectivity is wrong.

      More handwaving. That two of the organisms have lungs is an objective observation.

      Delete
    2. Zachriel: More handwaving. That two of the organisms have lungs is an objective observation.

      Your automatic weighting of the character trait as an important indicator of common ancestry with other lunged organisms is what's subjective.

      That claim is based on a metaphysical assumption of homology, and has never been supported objectively. But you evolutionists do it so constantly that you're blind to your own assumptions.

      Delete
    3. lifepsyop

      Your automatic weighting of the character trait as an important indicator of common ancestry with other lunged organisms is what's subjective.


      I see you completely ignored the info I provided on the processes scientists use to objectively determine bet fit hierarchical trees

      There's no ignorance like Creationist willful ignorance.

      Delete
    4. lifepsyop: Your automatic weighting of the character trait as an important indicator of common ancestry with other lunged organisms is what's subjective.

      You're not paying attention. We're discussing classification based on observable character traits.

      Delete
    5. Zachriel,

      Nic:"What is really funny about your response is the fact that you really believe it demonstrates my argument of subjectivity is wrong."

      Zachriel: "More handwaving. That two of the organisms have lungs is an objective observation."

      You're hilarious, nothing ever sinks in with you. I was demonstrating the subjectivity of any classification system. Can you not grasp what that entails?

      When you ask a question like 'which does not belong, mouse, lion or trout', it is immediately subject to the question, based on what?

      Is it starting to sink in yet?

      Delete