tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4464449754063527015..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution Professor: I Wrote a Thoughtful ResponseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger153125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45987948056088464442012-03-11T19:56:45.798-07:002012-03-11T19:56:45.798-07:00Peter:
Your explanation of the evolutionist's...Peter:<br /><br /><i>Your explanation of the evolutionist's fallacy is very imprecise. They make two mistakes. First ...</i><br /><br />Thanks for the feedback Peter. So many fallacies, and so little time ...Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21043964886052836722012-03-11T19:52:27.373-07:002012-03-11T19:52:27.373-07:00Cornelius,
Your explanation of the evolutionist&#...Cornelius,<br /><br />Your explanation of the evolutionist's fallacy is very imprecise. They make two mistakes. First they confuse a priori with a posteriori probabilities. After (a posteriori) a set of 500 tosses are made something obviously will happen. However, to determine a priori that you desire a particular 2^500 outcome will take a very long time. This is a well know elementary error in probability. You should have called them out on it. Secondly, complex improbable spontaneous biological arrangements are never witnessed, otherwise no one would doubt evolution. Being an empiricist you should call them out on this also. I believe you are trying to make this point, but you are very unclear and you require readers of your blog to follow two links to get to your argument, which still isn't all that clear. B+Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05067396087460502962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48461340397488430722012-01-20T11:44:04.555-08:002012-01-20T11:44:04.555-08:00Cornelius Hunter
Thorton: "To work for B...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br /> Thorton: "To work for Biola you agreed that you believed in a literal Genesis - young Earth and created "kinds" …<br /><br /> Obviously you haven't read the literature in years …<br /><br /> We're still waiting for your explanation as to why Dr. Behe's evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps is all wrong …<br /><br /> Please, don't make us ask four times again before you answer"</i><br /><br />You evaded the questions yet again CH. Thanks for another great demonstration of what passes for 'integrity' with Creationists.<br /><br /><i>I understand that lies can be obscured with jargon, and so overlooked or denied. </i><br /><br />We all know you know it. It's one of your favorite tactics.<br /><br /><i>How do you push forward knowing full well you are lying?</i><br /><br />You tell us CH. You're the guy who's been caught posting numerous Creationist porkies, not us. Do preach to us about lying for your religion some more. Jesus loves it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91892631900102842742012-01-20T10:15:53.974-08:002012-01-20T10:15:53.974-08:00Thorton:
To work for Biola you agreed that you be...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>To work for Biola you agreed that you believed in a literal Genesis - young Earth and created "kinds" …<br /><br />Obviously you haven't read the literature in years …<br /><br />We're still waiting for your explanation as to why Dr. Behe's evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps is all wrong …<br /><br />Please, don't make us ask four times again before you answer …</i><br /><br />What I don’t understand about evolutionists is how they view their lies. I understand that lies can be obscured with jargon, and so overlooked or denied. But I don’t understand the obvious lies that evolutionists come up with. The lies that not only are false, but they are then repeated over and over. Evolutionists can’t be unaware of the lies. How do you push forward knowing full well you are lying?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35957581177550821722012-01-19T07:38:42.750-08:002012-01-19T07:38:42.750-08:00CH, just so you don't forget: We're still...CH, just so you don't forget: We're still waiting for your explanation as to why Dr. Behe's evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps is all wrong, and why he's a lying fool for accepting it.<br /><br />Unless you wish to remain silent and admit you were talking through your hat again. That works too.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91216731446195384942012-01-19T06:16:51.904-08:002012-01-19T06:16:51.904-08:00Cornelius Hunter said...
Well I said that evoluti...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br />Well I said that evolutionists hold that fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously is a fact.</i><br /><br />LOL! Keep beating that silly strawman CH. Keep loudly proclaiming that evolution means a fish gave birth to a giraffe. It can do nothing but enhance that stellar reputation you have in the scientific community.<br /><br />Hey, here’s an idea! Why don’t you put together a slide presentation on the transition! You can put a drawing of a Devonian age fish on one side, then put a mirror-image of the picture on the other side and label it “giraffe”. That sure worked out well for you <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/they_make_laughingstocks_of_th.php" rel="nofollow">the last time you used the technique.</a><br /><br /><i>Well that’s true. I can’t compute the probability of evolution occurring. I can’t even compute the probability of a single protein evolving. But that’s because the probabilities are so astronomically low.</i><br /><br />Actually it is because you're incompetent in basic probability theory. To calculate an accurate probability you need to know all possible outcomes, and the number of those outcomes that 'work.' For a long-term iterative process like evolution you also need to know the history of each step, you can’t just take a one-time snapshot of the end result. You don’t have <b>any</b> of that information, which is why all those “it’s too improbable!!” made up numbers you keep tossing out are such garbage.<br /><br /><i>No, that would be variation AND inheritance AND selection. But that doesn’t help either.</i><br /><br />LOL! Sure CH. You go tell all those millions of scientists who have empirically observed the process work in the lab and in the field that they’re lying fools. Go tell all those companies that successfully use genetic algorithms to produce new designs they’re lying fools too. See how far you get.<br /><br /><i>Thorton: "If you want anyone to take you seriously you do."<br /><br />Well there is some common ground. It’s a good explanation of why scientific problems don’t matter.</i><br /><br />What doesn’t matter to the scientific community are desperate Creationists making up so-called ‘problems’ they can’t support or demonstrate. You know all about that I’m sure.<br /><br /><i> Thorton: "Try reading a book CH. Common descent is an established scientific fact."<br /><br />I didn’t know that.</i><br /><br />Yes CH, you did know that. You’re not a dumb guy CH, you’ve had significant scientific training. What you lack is integrity in pushing these same old Creationist lies day after day after day. I bet you never envisioned your career path would lead to such a dead end job as a bottom-feeding Creationist propagandist, did you?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7381946529719394462012-01-19T06:07:28.731-08:002012-01-19T06:07:28.731-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57474157348025179042012-01-19T00:36:30.495-08:002012-01-19T00:36:30.495-08:00Thorton:
CH: So I have to explain how the species...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>CH: So I have to explain how the species arose in order for them to recognize their scientific absurdities.<br /><br />Thorton: If you want anyone to take you seriously you do.</i><br /><br />Well there is some common ground. It’s a good explanation of why scientific problems don’t matter.<br /><br /><br /><i>Try reading a book CH. Common descent is an established scientific fact.</i><br /><br />I didn’t know that. I guess that pretty much seals it huh? Oh, by the way, what book is that?<br /><br /><i>It's cute how you tried to toss out a new bit of bait-and-switch nonsense, going from "common descent" to "evolutionary common descent".</i><br /><br />Yet more accusations. The evolutionist throws out the bait, then pulls a switch, and then accuses you of bait-and-switch. In a blog about evolution, the evolutionist asks if you believe in common descent. You explain the massive scientific problems that evolutionists deny. The evolutionist then says you must be rejecting supernatural common descent, where even the evolution of even a protein-protein interface is impossible. Of course that was never part of the discussion. A classic bait-and-switch. And then to top it off, when you explain the distinction he accuses you of the bait-and-switch.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37800460757306748042012-01-19T00:09:48.070-08:002012-01-19T00:09:48.070-08:00Thorton:
LOL! Wow CH, you managed to cram more Cr...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>LOL! Wow CH, you managed to cram more Creationist stupid canards into that paragraph that ever! Let's see, you've got the "it's too improbable!!" canard even though you can't compute any actual probabilities.</i><br /><br />Well that’s true. I can’t compute the probability of evolution occurring. I can’t even compute the probability of a single protein evolving. But that’s because the probabilities are so astronomically low. Even by evolutionists optimistic numbers a single protein evolving is so improbable that we’re in the miracle range. It may be a one out of 10^50 shot, but more likely it is far worse. Do we really need exact numbers here? We also cannot compute the probability of perpetual motion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say something about it. Evolution may have occurred, it may not have. But there is no question evolution is not a scientific fact.<br /><br /><i>You've got the "it took miracle mutations!!" where you dishonestly omit selection and inheritance. You double down on that with the "selection doesn't create mutations!!" where you dishonestly omit that evolution is an iterative process requiring variation AND selection AND inheritance.</i><br /><br />No, that would be variation AND inheritance AND selection. But that doesn’t help either. You see the “selection” and “inheritance” parts can have no influence on the “variation” part. Inheritance just passes the variation on, and selection then kills off the deleterious ones. Under evolutionary theory, the variation is on its own. Every single variation that implemented new fantastic biological mechanisms and machines must have occurred by pure chance. And no, the fact that previous useless mutations were killed off doesn’t help. What evolutionists would need are for the biological design space to be filled with billions of smooth, pathways with gradually increasing fitness, leading to the millions and millions of species and yes, between the ancient fish and the giraffe. Since this is ridiculous they now imagine that some new, sophisticated non local search mechanism can jump around the design space and find the astronomically rare gems of working designs. So after all the just-so stories and truth claims of how it all must be true, what we’re left with is random mutations somehow finding fantastic designs. In other words, the whole world just happened to arise on its own. And it’s all a fact.<br /><br /><i>Then to top it off, you fall back on your old comfy standby of equivocating between the fact of evolution and the theory that explains the fact.</i><br /><br />Uh, oh, not this again. Here’s how this one goes. Evolutionists say everything came from nothing, it’s an undeniable fact, and it you don’t agree you’re blackballed. Then when you point out the science they say evolution is a fact because some moth changed color or a microbe had a mutation. Then when you point out that doesn’t mean everything came from nothing they say you’re equivocating.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43543219495827883702012-01-18T23:25:32.780-08:002012-01-18T23:25:32.780-08:00Thorton:
CH: Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship? ...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>CH: Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship? <br /><br />Thorton: Yep. It's what you specialize in. Seems to be the only tool you've got.</i><br /><br />Well I said that evolutionists hold that fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously is a fact. Now is that an exaggeration? Is it a rhetorical misrepresentation of evolutionary theory? Here is how one textbook explains it:<br /><br /><i>However, there are some homologies that do look positively disadvantageous. One of the cranial nerves goes from the brain to the larynx via a tube near the heart. In fish this is a direct route. But the same nerve in all species follows the same route, and in the giraffe it results in an absurd detour down and up the neck, so that the giraffe has to grow maybe 3-5 meters more nerve than it would with a direct connection. The “recurrent laryngeal nerve,” as it is called, is surely inefficient. It is easy to explain such an efficiency if giraffes have evolved in small stages from a fish-like ancestor; but why giraffes should have such a nerve if they originated independently … well, we can leave that to others to try to explain. [Mark Ridley, Evolution, Blackwell, p. 50, 1993]</i><br /><br />There is no question that evolutionists believe the giraffe arose from fish. So where is the sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship? Was this evolution not spontaneous? Yes it was. Evolution is strictly the result of the play of chance. Here is how Jacques Monod explained the fact of evolution and how it is all according to chance:<br /><br /><i>We call these events [the various types of DNA sequence alteration] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism’s hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised.</i><br /><br />Or was it gamesmanship to say evolutionists insist all this is a fact? Again no. Evolutionists are adamant that this all must be a fact. Ernst Mayr explained that the fact of evolution is so overwhelmingly established that it would be irrational to call it a theory. The “fact” of evolution is often compared to that of gravity.<br /><br />You see I’m just repeating back what the evolutionists have told us. But like family, it’s OK for them to say it, but not for you to say it. <br /><br />And how does the evolutionist who cries “Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship” respond? <br /><br /><i>I guess your love of the DI's money is stronger than your moral principles.<br /><br />I suppose you have to keep pumping out the drivel and earn your Biola paycheck somehow.<br /><br />XXXXX the sockpuppet said...<br /><br />CH knows that all very well. He's just feeding the IDiot sycophants their nightly does of Creationist strawman stupidity to keep them happy and clicking on his link.<br /><br />Not very intellectually honest but hey - if they were honest they wouldn't be Creationists.<br /><br />Isn't it time for your mommy to tuck you into bed?<br /><br />Did Cornelius send out a secret memo having a "dumbest Creationist claim of the week" contest?<br /><br />LOL!</i>Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13826652745876079772012-01-18T09:28:26.446-08:002012-01-18T09:28:26.446-08:00CH: I don’t know.
Again, I'd suggest that wh...CH: I don’t know. <br /><br />Again, I'd suggest that what Cornelius does "know "is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere has no origin. It just "was". And this presupposition is prevalent thought his arguments. <br /><br />Is it merely a coincidence that all of his arguments strongly correlate him holding this presupposition? How else do could we better explain his objections? Anyone? <br /><br />CH: But for evolutionists that’s like an admission of guilt. Evolutionists insist they know the truth about origins, and if you are skeptical of their hilarious claims they then insist you provide the answer.<br /><br />The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created via a variation of conjecture and refutation. It's really quite simple. <br /><br />Not knowing exactly which conjectures in the form of genetic variation were refuted by natural selection, in the exact order, doesn't prevent us from explaining the origin of this knowledge itself. That's Cornelius' straw man argument.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1408469547286685692012-01-18T09:22:08.901-08:002012-01-18T09:22:08.901-08:00Speaking of Joe Thornton:
http://www.nature.com/n...Speaking of Joe Thornton:<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10724.htmlThe whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19736794825102711182012-01-18T09:04:42.105-08:002012-01-18T09:04:42.105-08:00CH: Sorry, IDs don’t support your evolutionary com...CH: Sorry, IDs don’t support your evolutionary common descent. Behe rightly points out that standard evolution can’t even get you a single protein.<br /><br />Of course, it's Cornelius who can't get a single protein, not science. <br /><br />This is yet another instance were we can better explain Cornelius' evolutionary objections in that he holds a presupposition that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere has always existed, rather than being created over time. <br /><br />Despite his claims of being supposedly neutral on the issue, this isn't evident via empirical observations alone. Rather it's likely a presupposition derived from his religious beliefs, which he then smuggles into his statistical assumptions under the guise of "science". <br /><br />Specifically, if the knowledge of how to build the biosphere had yet to be created, exactly how could one calculate the statistical likely hood of evolution of finding pre-existing knowledge though some sort of "search" in protein space? It's non-sensical. <br /><br />Yet this is the sort of disingenuous argument that Cornelius makes here on a regular basis.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41768720950945777502012-01-18T06:46:38.909-08:002012-01-18T06:46:38.909-08:00Cornelius Hunter said...
Sophomoric rhetorical ga...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br />Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship? </i><br /><br />Yep. It's what you specialize in. Seems to be the only tool you've got.<br /><br /><i>You see I’m merely repeating your own silly claims. </i><br /><br />No, you actually repeated your silly strawman. Do you really think no one would notice?<br /><br /><i>It doesn’t matter how long it took, evolutionists believe giraffes arose spontaneously from fish. Through a practically endless list of miracle mutations and variations, all of which had to be random with no direction or inducement, the fish morphed into a giraffe. Selection did not help induce those mutations. They had to happen on their own. It was a long series of truly astonishing, astronomically unlikely grand slams which just happened to happen in our little corner of the multiverse. Just lucky, I guess. Of course evolutionists have no idea how this possibly could have occurred, but they are absolutely dogmatic that it must have. This is beyond pathetic. It isn’t even wrong.</i><br /><br />LOL! Wow CH, you managed to cram more Creationist stupid canards into that paragraph that ever! Let's see, you've got the "it's too improbable!!" canard even though you can't compute any actual probabilities. You've got the "a fish morphed into a giraffe" strawman. You've got the "it took miracle mutations!!" where you dishonestly omit selection and inheritance. You double down on that with the "selection doesn't create mutations!!" where you dishonestly omit that evolution is an iterative process requiring variation AND selection AND inheritance. You toss in the 'multiverse' buzzword even though that has nothing to do with evolution. You deliberately misrepresent the state of scientific knowledge. Then to top it off, you fall back on your old comfy standby of equivocating between the fact of evolution and the theory that explains the fact.<br /><br />That was a real <i>tour de farce</i> CH. You should post in under your picture at the Disco 'tute.<br /><br /><i>They can’t even tell us how a single protein evolved. </i><br /><br />Obviously you haven't read the literature in years, or else you'd be familiar with the work of <a href="http://pages.uoregon.edu/joet/" rel="nofollow">Prof. Joe Thornton</a> on protein evolution.<br /><br /><i>So I have to explain how the species arose in order for them to recognize their scientific absurdities.</i><br /><br />If you want anyone to take you seriously you do. You've got to explain the empirical data better than the currently accepted theory. Problem for you is <b>you can't do it.</b> <br /><br /><i>No, not merely “accepting common descent” in some generic sense. Mandating that evolution’s common descent is a scientific fact. </i><br /><br />Try reading a book CH. Common descent is an established scientific fact. It's *how* it occurred that's the theory.<br /><br /><i>Sorry, IDs don’t support your evolutionary common descent.</i><br /><br />Behe says it does. <br /><br /><b>Michael Behe: "The bottom line is this. Common descent is true</b><br /><br />It's cute how you tried to toss out a new bit of bait-and-switch nonsense, going from "common descent" to "<i>evolutionary</i> common descent". One more sophomoric rhetorical game.<br /><br />CH, I'm looking forward to your explanation for why all that evidence for human-chimp common ancestry published by Behe is wrong, and why Behe is a lying fool. Will you be addressing his evidence point-by-point? <br /><br />Your fanboys are counting on you CH! Don't let them down!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58890324085695931682012-01-18T00:31:42.181-08:002012-01-18T00:31:42.181-08:00Let's see if Cornelius denies The Flood. Did a...Let's see if Cornelius denies The Flood. Did a big flood engulf the earth a few thousand years ago, and did Noah build a big boat to save his family and the ancestors of all terrestrial animals?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30750938606998350382012-01-18T00:24:10.824-08:002012-01-18T00:24:10.824-08:00It's hard to believe that Cornelius calls some...It's hard to believe that Cornelius calls someone "a lying fool" just because that person accepts common ancestry of humans and chimps. I suspect that he is really worried he might get EXPELLED from Biola if the preachers-in-chief find out that Cornelius isn't really a YEC. It's pathetic.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77202636403035515652012-01-18T00:13:26.766-08:002012-01-18T00:13:26.766-08:00Thorton:
CH: OK, just checking. You’re referring ...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>CH: OK, just checking. You’re referring to the fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously fact. I can see why you didn’t want to spell it out.<br /><br />Thorton: No one said fish turned directly into giraffes.</i><br /><br />But of course I didn’t say anyone said that. Evolutionists cannot reckon with their own claims.<br /><br /><i>The evidence does clearly show however that the long distant ancestors of giraffes were Devonian age fish. Given your history of sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship it's not surprising you try and dishonestly twist what was said.</i><br /><br />Sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship? It’s otherwise known as evolutionary theory. You see I’m merely repeating your own silly claims. It doesn’t matter how long it took, evolutionists believe giraffes arose spontaneously from fish. Through a practically endless list of miracle mutations and variations, all of which had to be random with no direction or inducement, the fish morphed into a giraffe. Selection did not help induce those mutations. They had to happen on their own. It was a long series of truly astonishing, astronomically unlikely grand slams which just happened to happen in our little corner of the multiverse. Just lucky, I guess. Of course evolutionists have no idea how this possibly could have occurred, but they are absolutely dogmatic that it must have. This is beyond pathetic. It isn’t even wrong.<br /><br /><br /><i>Science does see evidence that it happened, and when, and where. Science also knows how it happened to a high degree of confidence. Not every last detail, but plenty enough to seal the deal. It's a pity you chose to ignore so much confirmed scientific work that's readily available for anyone to see.</i><br /><br />Not every last detail? That would be the Mother of all Understatements. They can’t even tell us how a single protein evolved. It would be difficult to imagine a bigger scientific lie than this evolutionary mockery of science. The tragedy is that evolutionists make these misrepresentations of science and most people are none the wiser.<br /><br /><br /><i>For the umteenth time CH - if you have a better explanation for the genetic and fossil data, let's hear it. Otherwise you're just spitting into the wind again.</i><br /><br />Hilarious rationalism. Evolutionists insist everything came from nothing, and when you remind them of the science they insist they’re right because you haven’t solved their problem. So I have to explain how the species arose in order for them to recognize their scientific absurdities.<br /><br /><br /><i>To work for Biola you agreed that you believed in a literal Genesis - young Earth and created "kinds".</i><br /><br />Again, the real tragedy is that while evolutionists literally contrive whatever they like, people are none the wiser. Some have complained that evolutionists are allowed to freely comment on this blog, but it is precisely these comments that tell the story. Here the evolutionist is, in typical fashion, making up whatever misrepresentation seems to fit the moment, with no relationship to reality. This is the world of evolutionists.<br /><br /><br /><i>CH: But if you insist, IDs such as Behe and Dembski are not under the delusion the universe and everything in it spontaneously arose.<br /><br />Thorton: You said accepting common descent made one a lying fool. Behe and Dembski accept common descent. Have you told them they're lying fools? Your squirming to change the issue to "the universe spontaneously arose" would make a greased pig proud.</i><br /><br />No, not merely “accepting common descent” in some generic sense. Mandating that evolution’s common descent is a scientific fact. The OP and discussion has been about evolution, not ID.<br /><br /><br /><i>Which has nothing to do with accepting common descent. IDers who believe in front loading accept common descent. IDers who believe that God continuously tinkered over millions of years accept common descent.</i><br /><br />Sorry, IDs don’t support your evolutionary common descent. Behe rightly points out that standard evolution can’t even get you a single protein.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7486267648064034002012-01-17T20:32:15.995-08:002012-01-17T20:32:15.995-08:00More Behe vs. Hunter
Michael Behe in Edge of Evol...More Behe vs. Hunter<br /><br />Michael Behe in <i>Edge of Evolution</i>:<br /><br />"<b>The bottom line is this. Common descent is true;</b> yet the explanation of common descent — even the common descent of humans and chimps — although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial. It says merely that commonalities were there from the start, present in a common ancestor. "<br /><br />Cornelius Hunter of the Discovery Institute:<br /><br />"<b>Common descent is bad science</b> driven by silly religious claims, both of which are against my religion."<br /><br />Who to believe? Maybe you Intelligent Design Creationism geniuses should sit down together and get your story straight.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63559264819311424792012-01-17T20:03:19.667-08:002012-01-17T20:03:19.667-08:00Michael Behe in Edge of Evolution on the common an...Michael Behe in <i>Edge of Evolution</i> on the common ancestor of humans and chimps:<br /><br />""More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin — not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. [10] In one region of our genomes humans have five genes for proteins that act at various stages of development (from embryo through adult) as the second (betalike) chain of hemoglobin. This includes the gene for the beta chain itself, two almost identical copies of a gamma chain (which occurs in fetal hemoglobin), and several others. Chimpanzees have the very same genes in the very same order. In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a "pseudogene") that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.<br />"Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotide letters that seems to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene's coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseudogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.<br />"The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. <b>It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans."</b><br /><br />Cornelius Hunter at <i>Darwin's God blog</i> on the common ancestor of humans and chimps:<br /><br />"Do I accept that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor? <b>Of course not, I’m not a lying fool."</b><br /><br />CH, is Behe a lying fool? Maybe you can explain why you think he is wrong on this point.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79932097780043379992012-01-17T18:58:06.896-08:002012-01-17T18:58:06.896-08:00Cornelius Hunter said...
OK, just checking. Y...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br /> OK, just checking. You’re referring to the fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously fact. I can see why you didn’t want to spell it out.</i><br /><br />No one said fish turned directly into giraffes. The evidence does clearly show however that the long distant ancestors of giraffes were Devonian age fish. Given your history of sophomoric rhetorical gamesmanship it's not surprising you try and dishonestly twist what was said.<br /><br /><i>Oh yes, quite clear. You’re certain that fish turned into giraffes. There can be no question about it. We didn’t see it happen, and we don’t know how it could happen (that’s the theory we don’t understand). But it did happen, no question (that’s the fact we’re sure of). I’m on it now.</i><br /><br />Science does see evidence that it happened, and when, and where. Science also knows how it happened to a high degree of confidence. Not every last detail, but plenty enough to seal the deal. It's a pity you chose to ignore so much confirmed scientific work that's readily available for anyone to see.<br /><br />For the umteenth time CH - <b>if you have a better explanation for the genetic and fossil data, let's hear it.</b> Otherwise you're just spitting into the wind again.<br /><br /><i>If you think there is a contradiction somewhere then I’d be happy to clear it up.</i><br /><br />To work for Biola you agreed that you believed in a literal Genesis - young Earth and created "kinds". On this blog you play ignorant and claim to not have any opinion. You lied to someone, the only question is who.<br /><br /><i>But if you insist, IDs such as Behe and Dembski are not under the delusion the universe and everything in it spontaneously arose.</i><br /><br />You said accepting common descent made one a lying fool. Behe and Dembski accept common descent. Have you told them they're lying fools? Your squirming to change the issue to "the universe spontaneously arose" would make a greased pig proud.<br /><br /><i>IDs believe that at some level, intentional, intelligent design factors into origins. For them the spontaneous play of chance is not likely sufficient to explain how an ancient fish population gave rise to giraffes, no matter how much time there is for the system to decay. So grouping IDs with evolutionists doesn’t make sense. Make sense</i><br /><br />Which has nothing to do with accepting common descent. IDers who believe in front loading accept common descent. IDers who believe that God continuously tinkered over millions of years accept common descent. So according to you they must all be lying fools.<br /><br />You said it Cornelius, not me. At least be man enough to own up to your own words.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89146708216139975992012-01-17T18:11:49.938-08:002012-01-17T18:11:49.938-08:00Thorton:
Thorton: "That of course brings us ...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>Thorton: "That of course brings us to the usual point where you start the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact and the theory that explains the fact. Go ahead, wouldn't want to disappoint your handful of clueless IDCer fanboys.<br /><br />CH: I don't follow, what is the "observed fact" to which you're referring?<br /><br />Thorton: The only fact you asked me about, and the only one we've been discussing. That fact.</i><br /><br />OK, just checking. You’re referring to the fish-turning-into-giraffes-spontaneously fact. I can see why you didn’t want to spell it out.<br /><br /><br /><i>I guess we've reached stage two, where you play dumb and to try and equivocate over the term 'observed'. In this case it doesn't mean 'the event was seen in real time'; it means 'the evidence for the event has been seen'. Clear enough?</i><br /><br />Oh yes, quite clear. You’re certain that fish turned into giraffes. There can be no question about it. We didn’t see it happen, and we don’t know how it could happen (that’s the theory we don’t understand). But it did happen, no question (that’s the fact we’re sure of). I’m on it now.<br /><br /><br /><i>I notice you're avoiding all discussion on the big contradiction between what you swore to at Biola and what you claim here about species origins. What a surprise.</i><br /><br />Actually I try not to swear. And without swearing I explained my claims in great detail at those links you never read, remember? If you think there is a contradiction somewhere then I’d be happy to clear it up. But so far all you’ve done is made vague and evasive accusations about me being vague and evasive (after I explained my views in great detail).<br /><br /><br /><i>You also didn't answer if you think Behe, Dembski, and Mike Gene are lying fools because they accept common descent of giraffes arising from early tetrapods.</i><br /><br />Well I try to stick to questions that make some sense. But if you insist, IDs such as Behe and Dembski are not under the delusion the universe and everything in it spontaneously arose. That would be evolutionists.<br /><br />IDs believe that at some level, intentional, intelligent design factors into origins. For them the spontaneous play of chance is not likely sufficient to explain how an ancient fish population gave rise to giraffes, no matter how much time there is for the system to decay. So grouping IDs with evolutionists doesn’t make sense. Make sense?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84051605194296073242012-01-17T16:03:25.622-08:002012-01-17T16:03:25.622-08:00Cornelius Hunter said...
Thorton: "That ...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br /> Thorton: "That of course brings us to the usual point where you start the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact and the theory that explains the fact. Go ahead, wouldn't want to disappoint your handful of clueless IDCer fanboys.<br /><br /> I don't follow, what is the "observed fact" to which you're referring?</i><br /><br />The only fact you asked me about, and the only one we've been discussing. That fact.<br /><br />I guess we've reached stage two, where you play dumb and to try and equivocate over the term 'observed'. In this case it doesn't mean 'the event was seen in real time'; it means 'the evidence for the event has been seen'. Clear enough? Or do we have to go to Rhetorical Game Playing stage three?<br /><br />I notice you're avoiding all discussion on the big contradiction between what you swore to at Biola and what you claim here about species origins. What a surprise.<br /><br />You also didn't answer if you think Behe, Dembski, and Mike Gene are lying fools because they accept common descent of giraffes arising from early tetrapods.<br /><br />Easier to just duck those tough questions, eh CH? I don't mind. All the lurkers get to see you ducking and squirming too.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86830572550304116282012-01-17T12:58:01.304-08:002012-01-17T12:58:01.304-08:00Thorton:
That of course brings us to the usual po...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>That of course brings us to the usual point where you start the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact and the theory that explains the fact. Go ahead, wouldn't want to disappoint your handful of clueless IDCer fanboys.</i><br /><br />I don't follow, what is the "observed fact" to which you're referring?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58799803534262076292012-01-17T11:28:06.597-08:002012-01-17T11:28:06.597-08:00Cornelius Hunter said...
Thorton: "You left ...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br />Thorton: "You left out about 400 million years but I do accept the evidence that shows early fish evolved to be land dwelling tetrapods, which gave rise to the amniotes, which gave rise to the synapsids, which gave rise to mammals, one lineage of which eventually evolved into the extant giraffe."<br /><br />And is that a scientific fact, like gravity and the roundness of the earth?</i><br /><br />Enough positive evidence for that sequence has been amassed that the scientific community considers the transition to be a fact.<br /><br />That of course brings us to the usual point where you start the dishonest equivocation between the observed fact and the theory that explains the fact. Go ahead, wouldn't want to disappoint your handful of clueless IDCer fanboys.<br /><br />Do you think Behe, Dembski, and Mike Gene are lying fools because they accept common descent of giraffes arising from early tetrapods?<br /><br />Edited to fix typosGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2950457035692530942012-01-17T11:25:31.463-08:002012-01-17T11:25:31.463-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com