tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5229166237361170652..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Human-Chimp Genomic DifferencesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88238521730092323292010-05-22T17:28:14.111-07:002010-05-22T17:28:14.111-07:00Is there any evidence- any evidence whatsoever- th...<i>Is there any evidence- any evidence whatsoever- that changes in the genome can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans?</i><br /><br /><b>Yes.</b> A good example is the FOXP2 transcription factor that has been shown to regulate the genes responsible for speech. The human version is slightly different than the chimp version.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.livescience.com/health/091111-human-speech-gene.html" rel="nofollow">human speech gene</a><br /><br /><i>How can we test such a premise- that chimps and humans not only shared a common ancestor but that the physiological and anatomical differences can be explained by accumulating genetic accidents?</i><br /><br />Bayesian statistical analysis like the type done by Douglas Theobald in his recent work on the UCA<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/abs/nature09014.html" rel="nofollow">A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry</a><br /><br /><i>Evolutionists harp on ID when in reality it is their failure to substantiate their claims that has us at this point. </i><br /><br />Your complete ignorance of the evidence does not indicate a lack of evidence.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60498560494656874132010-05-22T16:17:13.712-07:002010-05-22T16:17:13.712-07:00Is there any evidence- any evidence whatsoever- th...Is there any evidence- any evidence whatsoever- that changes in the genome can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans?<br /><br />How can we test such a premise- that chimps and humans not only shared a common ancestor but that the physiological and anatomical differences can be explained by accumulating genetic accidents?<br /><br />Evolutionists harp on ID when in reality it is their failure to substantiate their claims that has us at this point.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59750306124287064912010-05-22T13:07:17.087-07:002010-05-22T13:07:17.087-07:00Cornelius,
"I do not agree with all of the ex...Cornelius,<br />"I do not agree with all of the explanatory notes."<br />well do you agree with this one?<br /><br />"God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God)."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87175271881649987642010-05-22T12:33:23.395-07:002010-05-22T12:33:23.395-07:00Since evolution is of course, from a scientific pe...<i>Since evolution is of course, from a scientific perspective, a low probability theory, I see good support for the miracle side of the spectrum.</i><br /><br />One more argument from personal incredulity. The simple fact is, neither you nor anyone else has sufficient knowledge to calculate an actual probability for evolution accurately enough to make such a claim. You don't know all possible evolutionary pathways, and you don't know if the genetic sequences we see now are the only possible ones to support life. The few feeble attempts at claiming calculated low probabilities of biological structures as 'evidence' for ID (Behe, Dembski) have all relied on the lottery fallacy, assuming the observed result is the only possible one. They also have all made the beginner's mistake of assuming all the constituent parts had to spontaneously arise and assemble all at once instead being added gradually through an iterative feedback process.<br /><br />If you walk in on a card game and see me holding a poker hand with a royal straight flush, you have no way of calculating the probability of that hand without knowing the rules and previous history of the game. If I was playing draw poker and the rules were I could have a million discards and redraws, the odds of me getting that hand are virtually 1.0Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84242502485035113562010-05-22T10:23:29.162-07:002010-05-22T10:23:29.162-07:00Oleg:
That is not the doctrinal statement. Did yo...Oleg:<br /><br />That is not the doctrinal statement. Did you read the document? It states:<br /><br />"In addition, the following explanatory notes indicate the organization’s understanding and teaching position on certain points which could be subject to various interpretations:"<br /><br />I do not agree with all of the explanatory notes. (I don't even agree with every jot and tittle of the doctrinal statement for that matter).<br /><br />What is relevant here is that I am pretty much in the middle of the historical spectrum of Christian thought on creation. Going back to Basil, Christian thought has always included a wide spectrum of thought on the basic question of law versus miracle. At the edges there are those who mandate a creation narrative that is exclusively or mostly one or the other (evolutionists vs creationists, for instance).<br /><br />I think the problem is somewhat underdetermined at this point. I think reasonable arguments can be made for the different points in the spectrum, but I don't think reasonable arguments can be made to *mandate* a specific position, which of course evolutionists (and many creationists) do.<br /><br />Since evolution is of course, from a scientific perspective, a low probability theory, I see good support for the miracle side of the spectrum. On the other hand, the law-like operation of biology and nature in general (eg, adaptation) is incredible and certainly is good evidence for the law side of the spectrum.<br /><br />Unfortunately there seems to be a tremendous amount of personal baggage people carry around with them in this debate. So often people seem to define themselves by what they are *not*. They're in their trenches, sniping at anything and everything "out there." Look at how Matzke and the evolutionists use the "creationist" label.<br /><br />I do agree there are plenty of writings to disagree with. Evolutionists say this world would never have been designed or created intentionally, therefore mandate a naturalistic creation, and then say there is a conflict between science and scripture. Creationists mandate scriptural interpretations that are merely one of several that are acceptable.<br /><br />But evolutionists and creationists also make some good points. So I prefer not to choose between 19th c. positions--what I see as a false dichotomy.<br /><br />What is disappointing to me is that evolution is metaphysically-laden, mandates a low probability theory, and insists it is science, good science, and the only way to do science. And then people like you join in, apparently thinking you are adding your voice to the cause of science when in fact you are adding to the problem.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48449571227848666542010-05-22T09:33:08.200-07:002010-05-22T09:33:08.200-07:00Cornelius,
The doctrinal statement includes an e...Cornelius, <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/" rel="nofollow">doctrinal statement</a> includes an explanatory note where we find the following paragraph: <br /><br /><i>Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.</i><br /><br />That's creationism, plain and simple. You do accept that part of the doctrinal statement, don't you?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69196146608007576932010-05-21T22:35:29.427-07:002010-05-21T22:35:29.427-07:00Nick:
=======
Yeah, old-earth creationist is stil...Nick:<br /><br />=======<br />Yeah, old-earth creationist is still creationist...<br />=======<br /><br />I'm not an old-earth creationist.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48590229222243668522010-05-21T22:34:16.929-07:002010-05-21T22:34:16.929-07:00Thomas S. Howard:
==========
Well, Cornelius, you...Thomas S. Howard:<br /><br />==========<br />Well, Cornelius, you adhere to the Biola doctrinal statement don't you? It's explicitly creationist, therefore you're a creationist if you do. I suspect, however, that you're looking to argue over the definition of the word, so let's just avoid that: do you adhere to the doctrinal statement or not? We can discuss what exactly the answer to that makes you later. <br />==========<br /><br />Let's have a look. First, it says you are a sinner:<br /><br />-------------<br />Man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, but the whole human race fell in the fall of the first Adam. All men, until they accept the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior, are lost, darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, hardened in heart, morally and spiritually dead through their trespasses and sins. They cannot see, nor enter the Kingdom of God until they are born again of the Holy Spirit.<br />-------------<br /><br />Yes, I believe that. Next, it says Jesus saves sinners:<br /><br /><br />-------------<br />By His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus made a perfect atonement for sin, by which the wrath of God against sinners is appeased and a ground furnished upon which God can deal in mercy with sinners. He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse in our place. He who Himself was absolutely without sin was made to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.<br />-------------<br /><br />Yes, I believe that. Next, it says those who receive Jesus are saved:<br /><br /><br />-------------<br />All those who receive Jesus Christ as their Savior and their Lord, and who confess Him as such before their fellow men, become children of God and receive eternal life. They become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. At death their spirits depart to be with Christ in conscious blessedness, and at the Second Coming of Christ their bodies shall be raised and transformed into the likeness of the body of His glory.<br />-------------<br /><br />Yes, I believe that. Next, it says those who reject Jesus are condemned:<br /><br />-------------<br />All those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in the state of conscious, unutterable, endless torment of anguish.<br />-------------<br /><br />Yes, I believe that. So yes, I adhere to the Biola doctrinal statement.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />==========<br />It's explicitly creationist ...<br />==========<br /><br />I didn't know that (but I'm not a creationist).Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-537390399654699272010-05-21T21:34:08.222-07:002010-05-21T21:34:08.222-07:00Oh dear lord,
Did you actually read the paper? T...Oh dear lord, <br /><br />Did you actually read the paper? The homologous sequences still have more than 98% identity to the human counterparts. It's just that the Y has been making new genes at the same time.<br /><br />If anyone is interested in the reasons for that I wrote about it at the time it was published:<br />http://theatavism.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-of-y-chromosomes-amazing.htmlDavid Winterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09704684760112027351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32646920371069224322010-05-21T18:10:38.303-07:002010-05-21T18:10:38.303-07:00The Predestined Blog -
And now I will be off po...The Predestined Blog - <br /><br /><b><br />And now I will be off point. I hope you know that the "scientific community" = Atheist Scientific Community for the most part. See NATURE|VOL 394 | 23 JULY 1998. They did a survey of the National Academy of Sciences and guess what 70 % disbelieved God 20% said they doubted and your are saying this "scientific community" rejects ID? OF COURSE.<br /></b><br /><br />Allow me to invite you to consider the implications that such a high percentage of acadmeic scientists doubt God.<br /><br />It apparently hasn't dawned on you yet. But doesn't that just scream out that the best evidence we have does NOT point to there being a God?<br /><br />It is the job - the LIFE - of a scientist to understand the world (or at least, their particular field of it). These are the people in the know. And apparently they don't find the evidence for ID very convincing, do they?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44035209600711058862010-05-21T15:43:44.721-07:002010-05-21T15:43:44.721-07:00Yeah, old-earth creationist is still creationist.....Yeah, old-earth creationist is still creationist...<br /><br />Re: <br /><br />==========<br />NickM,<br /><br />I hear what you say, but credit should be given to Dr. Hunter for highlighting the erroneous popular belief that has been sold to the masses as proof of evolution.<br /><br />Your crystal clear explanation that biological theorists have "predicted" these expected state of affairs regarding sex chromosomes, does very little to lighten the load for the main argument for design. It actually brings the question to mind; Why has popular science not been trying to explain to the masses that the evolution of the sex chromosomes is dependent on such involved prerequisites? Is it maybe because the masses has to think evolution is a gradual minutely incremental process that can scale "mount improbable" by chance mutations and selection?<br />==========<br /><br />What? You really expect scientists to put time into explaining the technical population genetics of sex chromosomes? And if they did, you think newspapers, TV shows, and the public would care? No, what would happen would be loss of ratings/sales for the media involved. And rightly so, probably, it's basically one of the million-and-one areas of science that are hard and technical and not hugely relevant to everyone's day-to-day lives, unless you work in the field.<br /><br />The only media there's been on this topic that I can recall is the stuff about how the male Y-chromosome is disappearing, leading to sillyness from the media about this means men will disappear, when in fact all it means is that eventually the male-determining bits eventually get attached to some other chromosome, which eventually itself becomes reduced, with the other genes "fleeing" to other chromosomes, etc.<br /><br />=======<br />P.S. Your religion bashing makes the display of your knowledge of the subject seems vulgar. But maybe that's the source of your power...<br />=======<br /><br />I didn't bash religion, I bashed creationism specifically for supporting the kinds of proud displays of outright, brazen ignorance and carelessness that we saw in Hunter's post and some of the comments. Sorry if it seemed rude, but a lot of scientists would be even more rude. Hunter's post, and many of the reactions, are about on the same level as someone claiming that scientists are misleading the public about the earth being round, because it has mountains on it, and some of them are really big. Shocking and scandalous development for mainstream round-earth-anary science! <br /><br />The only difference between this and evolution is that you already knew about mountains, and you didn't know about the common patterns in sex chromosomes.<br /><br />==========<br />Dr. Hunter certainly carry his views with class and should be commended by any rational person, regardless of their world view."<br />==========<br /><br />Why? His views on this topic are about the equivalent of some college freshman who wrote an essay on a biological topic without doing the responsible thing and doing the basic background research first. In a student, it would excusable, kind of, but for a Ph.D. presenting himself as an expert, holding forth on a blog, and posting his stuff on other blogs, and generally on a mission to "inform" the public about evolution, it's incredible.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5298856595110389952010-05-21T14:36:43.138-07:002010-05-21T14:36:43.138-07:00Dr Hunter:
The point of the blog is that evidence...Dr Hunter:<br /><br /><i>The point of the blog is that evidence that has been acclaimed as supporting evolution has another side to it.</i><br /><br />Thank you for your courteous response. I appreciate your willingness to answer questions.<br /><br />However, the evidence on the "other side" doesn't seem to contradict the acclaimed evidence that supports evolution (namely, the congruence between human and chimpanzee genomes). So, if your aim was to call evolutionary theory into question, this particular shot has missed, by my reckoning.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82895393773422468722010-05-21T14:25:04.355-07:002010-05-21T14:25:04.355-07:00I understand that it is only in the portions of DN...I understand that it is only in the portions of DNA that code for proteins that the similarity is 99%. In the noncoding sections, the differences are much greater.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4537267995155017512010-05-21T14:06:43.592-07:002010-05-21T14:06:43.592-07:00Well, Cornelius, you adhere to the Biola doctrinal...Well, Cornelius, you adhere to the Biola doctrinal statement don't you? It's explicitly creationist, therefore you're a creationist if you do. <br /><br />I suspect, however, that you're looking to argue over the definition of the word, so let's just avoid that: do you adhere to the doctrinal statement or not? We can discuss what exactly the answer to that makes you later.didymoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17208286214429823761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35769608467581765442010-05-21T13:33:31.993-07:002010-05-21T13:33:31.993-07:00Nick:
====
What I love is how creationists abstra...Nick:<br /><br />====<br />What I love is how creationists abstract little tidbits of science and ... Creationists totally forget<br />====<br /><br />So its back to creationist again.<br /><br />More later ...Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26599494955468548872010-05-21T13:27:42.220-07:002010-05-21T13:27:42.220-07:00David:
===
Could you be more specific about the p...David:<br /><br />===<br />Could you be more specific about the prediction that was falsified in this case?<br /><br />Who made the prediction? Do you have a reference? <br />===<br /><br />The point of the blog is that evidence that has been acclaimed as supporting evolution has another side to it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1501655209259251252010-05-21T13:22:01.938-07:002010-05-21T13:22:01.938-07:00nanobot74'
What ever is clouding your mind it...nanobot74'<br /><br />What ever is clouding your mind it surely cannot be helpful to scientific discovery. <br /><br />This blog post is just bringing new empirical data up for discussion. Anyone who claim to be a scientist should be able to handle any possible hypothesis when trying to explain natural phenomenon.<br /><br />But I suppose this is your place to fight and win, science can stand back.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84250784654623552512010-05-21T12:59:01.040-07:002010-05-21T12:59:01.040-07:00Michael,
"99% Chimp DNA has been a deal clin...Michael,<br /><br />"99% Chimp DNA has been a deal clincher since it was first published in popular science media."<br /><br />and now 98.9% similarity is a really strong argument against common descent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80234900199268748562010-05-21T12:55:12.105-07:002010-05-21T12:55:12.105-07:00Fine predestined, I think my points stand, but let...Fine predestined, I think my points stand, but lets talk real science. <br /><br />"The prediction is that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and that the Y chrom studies will support that claim.<br /><br />Dr. Hunter says the study does not support that prediction"<br /><br />Ok, I think the questions we've asked are:<br /><br />1) David-"Could you be more specific about the prediction that was falsified in this case?<br />Who made the prediction? Do you have a reference?"<br /><br />2) How can this work be interpreted as a falsification of common ancestry? See below.<br /><br />3) What was the ID hypothesis this verified? Please provide a reference pre-dating the work. How does ID explain the Y-chromosome, the pattern of inheritance, and Y chromosome function and mis-function? (see my post above) Lets see some of that explanatory power. <br /><br />Re point 2, as posted above:<br /><br />The paper in no way falsifies common ancestry.<br />No one would predict identity to chimps. I'd predict similarities with some key differences. No? Guess what happened? Scientists turned up a key difference. Shocking.<br /><br />But, from the paper:<br />"As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%). Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa"<br /><br />Ok, so 98.9-99% similar, except for a weird chunk, which is 70% similar. Near-identity with key differences! The paper goes on to explain the losses and duplications, transfers to and from other chromosomes, that account for the remainder.RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74754744533713249042010-05-21T12:45:19.000-07:002010-05-21T12:45:19.000-07:00David,
Are you actually going to keep up with thi...David,<br /><br />Are you actually going to keep up with this "Who made the prediction?" line, if you could walk into any shopping mall and ask the first evo-believer why he belief in common descent? <br /><br />99% Chimp DNA has been a deal clincher since it was first published in popular science media.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25146396252714611002010-05-21T12:33:36.943-07:002010-05-21T12:33:36.943-07:00@ David
The prediction is that humans and chimps...@ David <br /><br />The prediction is that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and that the Y chrom studies will support that claim.<br /><br />Dr. Hunter says the study does not support that prediction.The Predestined Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587261989476613134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82848190014949770362010-05-21T12:28:59.163-07:002010-05-21T12:28:59.163-07:00@ RobertC
C'mon you know when I said "WH...@ RobertC<br /><br />C'mon you know when I said "WHO CARES what ID's explanation is, its irrelevant to the point!" I was NOT conceding the fact that ID has no explanatory power, rather pointing out the fact that ID's explanatory power was not even the subject yet you brought it up.<br /><br />Can u not even give me that?<br /><br />And when I brought up the NAS article I wrote "And now I will be off point." Thats when I stopped talking about science, hence "off the ponit." <br /><br />So when u said "heat [sic] of the matter-the scientists are naughty atheists issue. Its all you have. " I didn't say anything of the sort. I was making the point that atheistic presuppositions affect how one views the data. <br /><br />Its obvious you don't want any meaningful conversation that is the real shame...The Predestined Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587261989476613134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5851511712998861272010-05-21T12:26:31.180-07:002010-05-21T12:26:31.180-07:00NickM,
I hear what you say, but credit should be ...NickM,<br /><br />I hear what you say, but credit should be given to Dr. Hunter for highlighting the erroneous popular belief that has been sold to the masses as proof of evolution.<br /><br />Your crystal clear explanation that biological theorists have "predicted" these expected state of affairs regarding sex chromosomes, does very little to lighten the load for the main argument for design. It actually brings the question to mind; Why has popular science not been trying to explain to the masses that the evolution of the sex chromosomes is dependent on such involved prerequisites? Is it maybe because the masses has to think evolution is a gradual minutely incremental process that can scale "mount improbable" by chance mutations and selection?<br /><br />P.S. Your religion bashing makes the display of your knowledge of the subject seems vulgar. But maybe that's the source of your power... <br /><br />Dr. Hunter certainly carry his views with class and should be commended by any rational person, regardless of their world view.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32803734030846122962010-05-21T10:22:30.797-07:002010-05-21T10:22:30.797-07:00The Predestined Blog wrote:
We were talking about...The Predestined Blog wrote:<br /><br /><i>We were talking about how this data seems to point at that evo predictive power is dubious.</i><br /><br />As I asked in the opening post,<br /><br /><i>Could you be more specific about the prediction that was falsified in this case?<br /><br />Who made the prediction? Do you have a reference?</i><br /><br />Thank you.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15235112645733730412010-05-21T10:00:53.493-07:002010-05-21T10:00:53.493-07:00Predestined:
I) "2 things happen in the evo/...Predestined:<br /><br />I) "2 things happen in the evo/ID discourse as an ID proponent:<br />1) Try to prove evolution false<br />2) Try to prove ID is true"<br /><br />Attempts to do either never routinely happen. Instead, you do an end run, and start blathering about the evil of atheism and sob stories about how we're unfair, and metaphysical, and so darn mean. Look at the comments on this blog. Who is discussing science except the evolutionists? Who is completely ignorant of the data, and making arguments that it shouldn't matter that ID is wholly un-explanatory? What hypothesis presented by an evolutionist here depends on religion? <br /><br />II) "Did I say that ID "no explanation for the data, no methodology, no science-and that you shouldn't have to."<br /><br />If you think I did please show me"<br /><br />You earlier:<br />"Let me say something, WHO CARES what ID's explanation is, its irrelevant to the point!"<br /><br />Close enough. <br /><br />III) "We were talking about how this data seems to point at that evo predictive power is dubious."<br /><br />"We" haven't debated a single point about the data or the science. My reply above stands, as do the references to the literature on this subject. <br /><br />IV) "But that's not the point I was making and ironically you fall straight into the point I was *actually* making."<br /><br />Nice flourish, but maybe you should re-state the actual point you are making. In fact, you've invalidated your own argument by distancing yourself from discussion of science, failing to defend the merits of ID, and diving straight to the heat of the matter-the scientists are naughty atheists issue. Its all you have. <br /><br />V) The survey was just of academy members, not all scientists. Even so, their beliefs don't falsify evolution. We don't have a doctrinal statement to practice science. Francis Collins, head of the NIH is proof positive of that. That many mainstream religious groups accept evolution is also.RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.com