Eppur si muove!

Hi there,

I am very impressed with the continues flow of interesting posts on this website. My compliments.
I am a total layman when it comes to biology - and science for that matter - but nonetheless interested in the ongoing debate between people with different views on evolution and creationism. I receive a fair amount of criticism from my fellow believers (I am a christian) for being an 'evolution-believer', but I can always count on Panda's Thumb to provide me with up-to-date information and arguments to counter the many ridiculous arguments that are being made against evolution.

Just wanted to say cheers and keep up the good work!

greetings from The Netherlands
Simon

You might find this of interest, Simon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvvbIEohAGE

Simon, that video is by an idiot and JohnBrown is obviously a troll.

As a Christian, Simon, you might want to consider what it really means to be an "evolution believer" (I,too, am a Christian, and I, too, believe in evolution - it all depends on what is meant by "evolution"). The following offers some food for thought (you can anticipate the author being denounced here as an "IDiot," or as a "creationist," or as "moron," or whatever the insult-of-the-day happens to be)...

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm

As a Christian, Simon, you might want to consider what it really means to be an “evolution believer” (I,too, am a Christian, and I, too, believe in evolution - it all depends on what is meant by “evolution”).

JohnBrown, it really doesn't depand om what anyone thinks is meant by evolution. Evolution theory is well articulated and supported by many facts. There is no need to watch youtubes about problems that we haven't solved (we = mankind). Remember, i'm no scientist. I just check out the peaces of the puzzle we have in place for as far as we can tell and enjoy the sight.

With respect to creatonism, either YEC or ID: I believe it's flawed in many ways. I spend many hours debating creationism in my country, but I have never been persuaded by anyone to take creationism seriously.

"“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” "Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars.”

Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having ID identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message”. Johnson emphasizes that "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion"; "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed."

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

(you can anticipate the author being denounced here as an “IDiot,” or as a “creationist,” or as “moron,” or whatever the insult-of-the-day happens to be)…

John Brown said: As a Christian, Simon, you might want to consider what it really means to be an “evolution believer”

So why would anyone care what a lawyer had to say about science?

Simon: "Evolution theory is well articulated and supported by many facts."

Evolutionary theory is also contradicted by many facts (such as the failure of the fossil record to match the continuum of life predicted by evolutionary theory). The facts make a fairly persuasive case for descent with modification, but that is merely a description of life's history, not an explanation of it (descent with modification is consistent with both evolutionary theory and ID theory, although it's at odds with special creation). The facts also make a fairly persuasive case for the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to cause microevolution (such as bacteria adapting to antibiotics, or insects adapting to insecticides, or adaptive changes in the beaks of finches, or adaptive changes in the coloration of peppered moths). But there are few facts supporting the macroevolutionary claims of evolutionary theory (such as the claim that Darwinian mechanisms can generate biological novelty in the form of new organisms, new organs, new biological systems, etc.). For the most part, evolutionary biologists simply extrapolate from microevolution (which is fairly well-supported) to macroevolution (which is not). Those who are committed to a material explanation of life's evolution will find the extrapolation persuasive; those who aren't will see that the extrapolation is unwarranted on both logical and scientific grounds. Evolutionary biologists are also quite adept at spinning just-so stories that purport to show how Darwinian mechanisms could have done the creative work attributed to them. Those stories, too, will be persuasive only to those who are already committed to evolutionary theory. Skeptics will notice the absence of any detailed, testable accounts of how Darwinian mechanisms brought into being even a single complex biological system. Much of what is said about the merits of evolutionary theory can be characterized as wishful speculation, which brings to mind something Mark Twain once said, to wit:

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of facts."

I'd say keep an open mind, Simon. The case is not closed on the causes of life's diversity and complexity, notwithstanding all the dogmatic assertions to the contrary that you'll see on blogs like Panda'sThumb.

I’d say keep an open mind, Simon.

A deeper analysis of the underlying mechanism behind evolution and the fossil record, leaves little doubt that mutations of a random nature could not possibly have been the driving force behind the development of life on earth.

There has been opposition to the theory of evolution on the basis of whether a random process can produce organization. An analogy often given is, can a monkey on a typewriter, given enough time, produce the works of Shakespeare purely by random keystrokes? Let's assume for the purpose of this discussion that this is possible -- and that random mutations, given enough time, can also eventually produce the most complex life forms.

Let's begin by rolling a die (one "dice"). To get a "3," for example, you'd have to roll the die an average of six times (there are six numbers, so to get any one of them would take an average of six rolls). Of course, you could get lucky and roll a 3 the first time. But as you keep rolling the die, you'll find that the 3 will come up on average once every six rolls.

The same holds true for any random process. You'll get a "Royal Flush" (the five highest cards, in the same suit) in a 5-card poker game on average roughly once every 650,000 hands. In other words, for every 650,00 hands of mostly meaningless arrangements of cards (and perhaps a few other poker hands), you'll get only one Royal Flush.

Multi-million dollar lotteries are also based on this concept. If the odds against winning a big jackpot are millions to one, what will usually happen is that for every game where one person wins the big jackpot with the right combination of numbers, millions of people will not win the big jackpot because they picked millions of combinations of meaningless numbers. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a multi-million dollar lottery yet where millions of people won the top prize and only a few won little or nothing. It's always the other way around. And sometimes there isn't even one big winner.

How does this relate to evolution?

Let's take this well-understood concept about randomness and apply it the old story of a monkey on a typewriter. As mentioned earlier, for the purpose of this discussion, we'll assume that if you allow a monkey to randomly hit keys on a typewriter long enough he could eventually turn out the works of Shakespeare. Of course, it would take a very long time, and he'd produce mountains and mountains of pages of meaningless garbage in the process, but eventually (we'll assume) he could turn out the works of Shakespeare.

Now, let's say, after putting a monkey in front of a typewriter to type out Shakespeare, you decide you also want a copy of the Encyclopedia of Britannica. So you put another monkey in front of another typewriter. Then, you put a third monkey in front of third typewriter, because you also want a copy of "War And Peace." Now you shout, "Monkeys, type," and they all start banging away on their typewriters.

You leave the room and have yourself cryogenically frozen so you can come back in a few million years to see the results. (The monkeys don't have to be frozen. Let's say they're an advanced species; all they need to survive millions of years is fresh ink cartridges.)

You come back in a few million years and are shocked at what you see. What shocks you is not what you find, but what you don't find. First, you do find that the monkeys have produced the works of Shakespeare, the Encyclopedia of Britannica and "War and Peace." But all this you expected.

What shocks you is that you don't see the mountains of papers of meaningless arrangement of letters that each monkey should have produced for each literary work. You do find a few mistyped pages here and there, but they do not nearly account for the millions of pages of "mistakes" you should have found.

And even if the monkeys happened to get them all right the first time, which is a pretty big stretch of the imagination, they still should've type out millions of meaningless pages in those millions of years. (Who told them to stop typing?) Either way, each random work of art should have produced millions upon millions of meaningless typed pages.

This is precisely what the problem is with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A random process, as depicted by Darwinian evolution and accepted by many scientists, even if one claims it can produce the most complex forms of life, should have produced at least millions of dysfunctional organisms for every functional one. And with more complex organisms (like a "Royal Flush" as opposed to a number 3 on a die), an even greater number of dysfunctional "mistakes" should have been produced (as there are so many more possibilities of "mistakes" in a 52-card deck than a 6-sided die).

The fossil record should have been bursting with billions upon billions of completely dysfunctional-looking organisms at various stages of development for the evolution of every life form. And for each higher life form -- human, monkey, chimpanzee, etc. -- there should have been millions of even more "mistakes."

Instead, what the fossil record shows is an overwhelming number of well-formed, functional-looking organisms, with an occasional aberration. Let alone we haven't found the plethora of "gradually improved" or intermediate species (sometimes referred to as "missing links") that we should have, we haven't even found the vast number of "mistakes" known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be produced by every random process.

We don't need billions of years to duplicate a random process in a lab to show that it will produce chaos every time, regardless of whether or not it might eventually produce some "meaningful complexity." To say that randomness can produce organization is one thing, but to say that it won't even produce the chaos that randomness invariably produces is inconsistent with established fact.

A process that will produce organization without the chaos normally associated with randomness is the greatest proof that the process is not random.

The notion that the fossil record supports the Darwinian theory of evolution is as ludicrous as saying that a decomposed carcass proves an animal is still alive. It proves the precise opposite. The relative scarcity of deformed-looking creatures in the fossil record proves beyond a doubt that if one species spawned another (which in itself is far from proven) it could not possibly have been by a random process.

To answer why we don't see many of the "mistakes" in the fossil record, some scientists point out that the genetic code has a repair mechanism which is able to recognize diseased and dysfunctional genetic code and eliminate it before it has a chance to perpetuate abnormal organisms.

Aside from this not being the issue, this isn't even entirely true. Although genetic code has the ability to repair or eliminate malfunctioning genes, many diseased genes fall through the cracks, despite this. There are a host of genetic diseases -- hemophilia, various cancers, congenital cataract, spontaneous abortions, cystic fibrosis, color-blindness, and muscular dystrophy, to name just a few -- that ravage organisms and get passed on to later generations, unhampered by the genetic repair mechanism. During earth's history of robust speciation (species spawning new ones) through, allegedly, random mutation, far more genes should have fallen through the cracks.

And, as an aside, how did the genetic repair mechanism evolve before there was a genetic repair mechanism? And where are all those millions of deformed and diseased organisms that should've been produced before the genetic repair mechanism was fully functional?

But all this is besides the point. A more serious problem is the presumption that natural selection weeded out the vast majority, or all, of the "misfits."

A genetic mutation that would have resulted in, let's say, the first cow to be born with two legs instead of four, would not necessarily be recognized as dysfunctional by the genetic repair mechanism. (I'll be using "cow" as an example throughout; but it applies to almost any organism.) From the genetic standpoint, as long as a gene is sound in its own right, there's really no difference between a cow with four legs, two legs, or six tails and an ingrown milk container. It's only after the cow is born that natural selection, on the macro level, eliminates it if it's not fit to survive.

It's these types of mutations, organisms unfit to survive on the macro level, yet genetically sound, that should have littered the planet by the billions.

Sure these deformed cows would have gotten wiped out quickly by natural selection, since they had no chance of surviving. But how many millions of dysfunctional cows alone, before you even get to the billions of other species in earth's history, should have littered the planet and fossil record before the first stable, functioning cow made its debut? If you extrapolate the random combinations from a simple deck of cards to the far greater complexity of a cow, we're probably talking about tens of millions of "mistakes" that should have cluttered planet earth for just the first functioning cow.

Where are all these relics of an evolutionary past?

Did nature miraculously get billions of species right the first time? Of the fossils well-preserved enough to study, most appear to be well-designed and functional-looking. With the low aberration ratio of fossils being no more significant, as far as speciation is concerned, than common birth deformities, there seems to have been nothing of a random nature in the development of life.

One absurd response I've gotten from a scientist as to why a plethora of deformed species never existed is: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation.

This is like asking, "How come everybody leaves the lecture hall through exit 5, but never through exit 4?" and getting a response, "Because people don't leave the lecture hall through exit 4." Wasn't this the question?

What scientists have apparently done is look into the fossil record and found that new species tend to make their first appearance as well-formed, healthy-looking organisms. So instead of asking themselves how can a random series of accidents seldom, if ever, produce "accidents," they've simply formulated a new rule in evolutionary biology: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation. This answer is about as scientific, logical and insightful as, "Because I said so."

It's one thing for the genetic code to spawn relatively flawless cows today, after years of stability. But before cows took root, a cow that might have struck us as deformed would have been no more or less "deleterious," from the genetic standpoint, than a cow that we see as normal. The genetic repair mechanism may recognize "healthy" or "diseased" genetic code, but it can't know how many legs or horns a completely new species should have, if we're talking about a trial-and-error crapshoot. If the genetic repair mechanism could predict what a functioning species should eventually look like, years before natural selection on the macro level had a chance to weed out the unfit, we'd be talking about some pretty weird, prophetic science.

In a paper published in the February 21, 2002, issue of Nature, Biologists Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine McGinnis, and William McGinnis described how they were able to suppress some limb development in fruit flies simply by activating certain genes and suppress all limb development in some cases with additional mutations during embryonic development.

In another widely publicized experiment, mutations induced by radiation caused fruit flies to grow legs on their heads.

These experiments showed how easy it is to make drastic changes to an organism through genetic mutations. Ironically, although the former experiment was touted as supporting evolution, they both actually do the opposite. The apparent ease with which organisms can change so dramatically and take on bizarre properties, drives home the point that bizarre creatures, and bizarre versions of known species, should have been mass produced by nature, had earth's history consisted of billions of years of the development of life through random changes.

To claim that the random development of billions of life forms occurred, yet the massive aberrations didn't, is an absurd contradiction to everything known about randomness.

Evolutionists tend to point out that the fossil record represents only a small fraction of biological history, and this is why we don't find all the biological aberrations we should. But the issue here is not one of numbers but one of proportion.

For every fossil of a well-formed, viable-looking organism, we should have found an abundance of "strange" or deformed ones, regardless of the total number. What we're finding, however, is the proportional opposite.

Evolution may have made some sense in Darwin's days. But in the 21st century, evolution appears to be little more than the figment of a brilliant imagination. Although this imaginative concept has, in the years since Darwin, amassed a fanatical cult-like following, science, it is not. Science still needs to be proven; you can't just vote ideas into "fact." And especially not when they contradict facts.

One sign of the desperation of evolutionists to get their fallacious message across is their labelling of all disproofs of evolution as "Creationism," even when no mention of Creation or a deity is made. Ironically, it's evolutionists' dogmatic adherence to concepts that are more imagination than fact that smacks of a belief in mystical, supernatural powers. What evolutionists have done, in effect, is invented a new god-less religion and re-invented their own version of creation-by-supernatural-means. However, the mere elimination of God from the picture doesn't exactly make it science.

So if the development of life was not an accident, how did life come about?

Well, pointing out a problem is not necessarily contingent upon whether or not a solution is presented. In this case, presenting an alternative may actually be counterproductive. Evolutionists often get so bogged down with trying to discredit an proposed alternative, frequently with nothing more than invectives, that they tend to walk away believing evolution must still work.

The objective here, therefore, is to point out that Darwinian evolution does not fall apart because a solution being presented says it happened differently. The objective here is to show that the mechanics of evolution are incompatible with empirical evidence, verifiable science and common sense, regardless of whatever else may or may not take its place.

For a true study of science, we need to put the theory of evolution to rest, as we've done with so many other primitive concepts born of ignorance. Science today is far beyond such notions as metals that turn into gold, brooms that fly, earth is flat, and mystical powers that accidentally create life. What all these foolish beliefs have in common is that they were popular in their own time, were never duplicated in a lab, and were never proven by any other means.

We'd be doing society a great service if we filled our science textbooks with verifiable facts that demonstrate how science works, instead of scintillating fabrications that demonstrate how imaginative and irrational some scientists can get.

Eric: "So why would anyone care what a lawyer had to say about science?"

I can think of several reasons, Eric:

1) As a lawyer and a professor of law, Johnson has a well-developed ability to discern when claims are not well-supported by the evidence. He puts that ability to good use in criticizing many of the claims made by evolutionary biologists.

2) He's a many of high intelligence who writes with great insight and clarity. Anyone familiar with his writings will know that he's not a threat to truth, justice, and the American way, as his more hysterical critics contend.

3) He's quite knowledgeable about evolutionary theory. In the words of paleontologist David Raup: "Phil Johnson's work is very good scholarship and, of course, this has been widely denied. He cannot be faulted; he did his homework and he understands 99 percent of evolutionary biology."

4) Science benefits from the critical scrutiny of outsiders. Otherwise it might devolve into dogmatism (as is the case with evolutionary biology - a regrettable development that blogs like Panda'sThumb demonstrate beyond dispute).

Thanks, Josh, for self-plagarizing.

Oops. When I wrote that Phillip Johnson is "a many of high intelligence," I meant to write "a man of high intelligence."
My marginally competent proofreader - that would be me - failed to catch the typo.

Josh Greenberger said: A deeper analysis of the underlying mechanism behind evolution and the fossil record, leaves little doubt that mutations of a random nature could not possibly have been the driving force behind the development of life on earth.

Did nature miraculously get billions of species right the first time?

For every fossil of a well-formed, viable-looking organism, we should have found an abundance of “strange” or deformed ones, regardless of the total number.

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of facts.”

— John Brown, quote-mining Mark Twain,

Bill complained that the Twain quote was "out of context," so here's the context (from "Life on the Mississippi"):

"Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and 'let on' to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor 'development of species,' either! Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--vague. Please observe:--

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower
Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period,' just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together,
and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

Clearly, Twain was spoofing the tendency of scientists to make unwarranted extrapolations to "explain" past events in the earth's history. A modern example of such unwarranted extrapolations is the extrapolation evolutionary biologists make from microevolution (such as the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to produce adaptive changes in the beaks of finches) to macroevolution (such as the presumed ability of Darwinian mechanisms to have brought finches into existence in the first place).

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of facts.”

Random natural processes can easily produce non-random results. Look at the photos on this page, http://raider.muc.edu/~mcnaugma/sediment.htm and consider the random, even turbulent forces that create these shapes. What is so often overlooked is that sorting takes place. It happens in geology, biology, astronomy, and just about every other science. Josh, next time you're at the beach, look closely at the sand and really try to understand the processes at work. It also works for evolution.
James R

More of the usual. Produce some hilariously absurd caricature of science no scientist has ever remotely accepted, assume they all accept it anyway, show that it's hilariously absurd, and conclude that all scientists must be idiots. You have to wonder.

Raven: "To plagiarize one of the Stantons,

'There is something fascinating about deluded religious fanatics who use high tech means of communications provided by the Golden Goose to take potshots at the…Golden Goose.'"

I think you missed the point, Raven. I provided the Twain quote not to "take potshots at" legitimate scientific methods and discoveries (to which we do, indeed, owe a great deal), but to bring into question the scientific and logical legitimacy of the extrapolations made by evolutionary biologists. Unwarranted extrapolations are merely wishful speculations, and science needs more than wishful speculations to validate its theories.

Also, I'm not a "deluded religious fanatic." It's a bit hard to respect a person who describes someone he does not know in such a way.

We’d be doing society a great service if we filled our science textbooks with verifiable facts that demonstrate how science works, instead of scintillating fabrications that demonstrate how imaginative and irrational some scientists can get.

A deeper analysis of the underlying mechanism behind evolution and the fossil record, leaves little doubt that mutations of a random nature could not possibly have been the driving force behind the development of life on earth.

Clearly, Twain was spoofing the tendency of scientists to make unwarranted extrapolations to “explain” past events in the earth’s history. A modern example of such unwarranted extrapolations is the extrapolation evolutionary biologists make from microevolution (such as the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to produce adaptive changes in the beaks of finches) to macroevolution (such as the presumed ability of Darwinian mechanisms to have brought finches into existence in the first place).

— John Brown

Bill: "Second thread (the Mark Twain quote) has come up on in as many days."

What do you conclude from that, Bill?

Bill: "Was Twain spoofing science, or people’s views of science?"

As I've already said, I think he was spoofing the tendency of some scientists {"ponderous scientific people," in Twain's words) to make unwarranted extrapolations.

Bill: "Are you saying that the fact that one can make an absurd extrapolation proves that all extrapolation is futile?"

No. But some extrapolations are warranted, and others are not.

John Brown said: Evolutionary theory is also contradicted by many facts (such as the failure of the fossil record to match the continuum of life predicted by evolutionary theory).

...descent with modification is consistent with both evolutionary theory and ID theory...

The facts also make a fairly persuasive case for the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to cause microevolution...But there are few facts supporting the macroevolutionary claims of evolutionary theory

Those who are committed to a material explanation of life’s evolution will find the extrapolation persuasive; those who aren’t will see that the extrapolation is unwarranted on both logical and scientific grounds.

Evolutionary biologists are also quite adept at spinning just-so stories that purport to show how Darwinian mechanisms could have done the creative work attributed to them.

Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno.

The arrogance of Josh Greenberger is unlimited. Obviously being quite uninformed about the real evolution theory, and replacing it with a carricature, he had the gall to take so much space on this blog by his lengthy preposterous dissertation which also reveals his misunderstanding of probabilities. It is annoying to encounter time and time again the asseverations by the creos about the impossibility of "random" events to result in speciation. Time and time again it has been explained that Darwinian-based theory of evolution is not a theory of random events, but, to the contrary, a theory of non-random processes, in particular those referred to as natural selection. Modern evolutionary biology has progressed far beyond the original theory of Darwin, but the role of natural selection (which is by far not the only mechanism of evolution) has been confirmed many times over. But greenbergers' of the world are deaf to arguments and stubornly stick to their carricature of evolution theory, plus their misinterpretation of the role of probabilities. It is hopeless to argue with the likes of Josh, FL, or "JohnBrown."

Scientists don't have to extrapolate from earliest fish to modern mammal. They only have to extrapolate between consecutive fossils in each lineage (i.e., across each "gap"). In some of those cases the gaps are fairly small, and that makes it reasonable to presume similar processes occurred in lineages that didn't leave as many fossils for people to find.

Henry

Josh Greenberger: Let's take this well-understood concept about randomness and apply it the old story of a monkey on a typewriter. As mentioned earlier, for the purpose of this discussion, we'll assume that if you allow a monkey to randomly hit keys on a typewriter long enough he could eventually turn out the works of Shakespeare. Of course, it would take a very long time, and he'd produce mountains and mountains of pages of meaningless garbage in the process, but eventually (we'll assume) he could turn out the works of Shakespeare. Now, let's say, after putting a monkey in front of a typewriter to type out Shakespeare, you decide you also want a copy of the Encyclopedia of Britannica. So you put another monkey in front of another typewriter. Then, you put a third monkey in front of third typewriter, because you also want a copy of "War And Peace." Now you shout, "Monkeys, type," and they all start banging away on their typewriters. You leave the room and have yourself cryogenically frozen so you can come back in a few million years to see the results. (The monkeys don't have to be frozen. Let's say they're an advanced species; all they need to survive millions of years is fresh ink cartridges.) You come back in a few million years and are shocked at what you see. What shocks you is not what you find, but what you don't find. First, you do find that the monkeys have produced the works of Shakespeare, the Encyclopedia of Britannica and "War and Peace." But all this you expected. What shocks you is that you don't see the mountains of papers of meaningless arrangement of letters that each monkey should have produced for each literary work. You do find a few mistyped pages here and there, but they do not nearly account for the millions of pages of "mistakes" you should have found. And even if the monkeys happened to get them all right the first time, which is a pretty big stretch of the imagination, they still should've type out millions of meaningless pages in those millions of years. (Who told them to stop typing?) Either way, each random work of art should have produced millions upon millions of meaningless typed pages. This is precisely what the problem is with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

The relative scarcity of deformed-looking creatures in the fossil record proves beyond a doubt that if one species spawned another (which in itself is far from proven) it could not possibly have been by a random process

But some extrapolations are warranted, and others are not.

— John Brown

Hey, Eric: Water, methane, and ammonia are all good examples.

Y'know, there are people who just plain don't want things explained. I've met them. They prefer their mysterious and spooky worldview. I don't know why, but they do.

What I find annoying is that some folks want to diminish the importance of experience. When evolutionary biologists make statements regarding trends in fossils, similarities and differences between species, etc, they are doing so from the context of many, many specimens, studied, measured, compared, statistically analyzed across populations. This is why they are "experts"; not just because they read, take classes, do field work, etc. It is the epitome of arrogance to dismiss their hypotheses as conjecture-only people who have worked with thousands of specimens can truly pass judgment. (ie-peers)

This is why it does NOT matter what a lawyer thinks about evolutionary biology. A lawyer does not have the experience to understand the raw data. A lawyer cannot pass judgment on how the evidence is used. A lawyer does not pass judgment on a medical case-that is what EXPERT witnesses are for. (other doctors who practice in the area the case involves) My father is a retired ship pilot who serves as expert witness in maritime accidents. It's laughable to think that any lawyer could possibly understand navigation and ship handling.

The DI is filled with computer programmers, doctors, mathematicians, lawyers and marketing experts. NOT evolutionary biologists.

For example, when two elements end up sharing the same space they might combine to form a compound. (I am not a chemist, so I can’t think of a specific example) There is nothing random about their combining except the fact that they were sharing the same space. Thus a non-random event occurs creating something complex without an intelligent force, at least that we can perceive.

I would expect the combination of monkey’s and typewriters to only make a mess so I don’t see how that is a problem for evolution.

Also, I’m not a “deluded religious fanatic.” It’s a bit hard to respect a person who describes someone he does not know in such a way.

why is it that anti science nuts always fail to appreciate irony?

I think perhaps more relevant to point when faced with this randomness nonsense is to point out by the basic physics definitions for true randomness to be present there must be some parts of the system that would display order. A purely random arrangement of atoms means that every possible conformation/ position would be equally likely. You cannot throw out the extremely large numbers of positions that display the property of order (what ever one means by that) and then claim it is a random sample! It the opposite it is in fact biased. Using similar illogic in biology invariably leads to the conclusion that God must directly intervene in every single protein that folds in the universe. (for those unfamiliar proteins over a trivially small size have a vast number of possible positions they could exist in yet the manage to fold up into their stable forms much more rapidly then if the had to randomly adopt all possibilities until they found the most stable one)

JB: but to bring into question the scientific and logical legitimacy of the extrapolations made by evolutionary biologists. Unwarranted extrapolations are merely wishful speculations, and science needs more than wishful speculations to validate its theories. Also, I’m not a “deluded religious fanatic.” It’s a bit hard to respect a person who describes someone he does not know in such a way.

Now that creationist and ID folkss are once again attempting to make a serious impression on Panda Thumb threads, I'm reminded of an effort I made some years ago to come up with a challenging attack on the core concepts of evolutionary biology. I was vain enough to think that I could at least cook up something that would have more rhetorical effect than the junk normally put out by the trolls. After several drafts, I gave up on this perverse project. Maybe we ought to have a contest to see if anybody can at least put up a reasonable fight against science. The ID people aren't putting up much resistance.They obviously need help.

KL observed: What I find annoying is that some folks want to diminish the importance of experience. When evolutionary biologists make statements regarding trends in fossils, similarities and differences between species, etc, they are doing so from the context of many, many specimens, studied, measured, compared, statistically analyzed across populations.

Josh Greenberger said: For every fossil of a well-formed, viable-looking organism, we should have found an abundance of “strange” or deformed ones, regardless of the total number. What we’re finding, however, is the proportional opposite.

I just LOVE that video that John Brown posted a link to on whale evolution. 50,000 adaptations to an aquatic life. Huh?

Now seriously, Mr. Brown. Let's start right there. Please detail the "50,000 changes" that are so deftly tossed onto the table. Please. Do be my guest to start a list. Then we can talk about the concept of "morphological integration", developmental biology, and of coure evolutionary developmental genetics. I anxiously await your actual data.

Thank you Josh Greenberger. I hope you didn't spend too long writing that. You could have saved yourself the trouble. Everything you said has been repeated by creationists for DECADES, and we all recognize that you are repeating material that is abundantly present on creationist web pages, and in fact has been put out by the ICR possibly before you were born. I suggest that you not only refer to the concise assemblage of refutations on the Talk Origins Archive, but also take some very basic courses in biology. Perhaps you would like to comment on the actual post? But if you insist on these particular arguments, why not start off with something more up to date?

(for those unfamiliar proteins over a trivially small size have a vast number of possible positions they could exist in yet the manage to fold up into their stable forms much more rapidly then if the had to randomly adopt all possibilities until they found the most stable one)

Short version: Oh yeah? If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?

Too funny- get over to PZ's blog. They would let him in to see Expelled tonight in Minneapolis. But they let his guest in, who was escorted by PZ's wife and daughter. You will roll in the floor laughing when you hear who the guest is !!

It should be they would not let PZ in to see Expelled, in fact he had to leave the theater. But his "guest" is going to give us an earful !!!!

JGB,

Google chaparones.

Oh....my....God. BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! PZ Meyers has got to have the biggest grin on his face, knowing just how badly those clowns screwed up! Meyers' guest must be seriously considering the idea that indeed there might be a god, to hand him such a deliciously rich opportunity! Nahhh. Hypocrites are usually their own worst enemy, and need no divine help to look like fools.

I used to be more up to date on my folding literature, but my recollection from a few years ago was that they still did not have good evidence for chaperones being involved with more than a modest percentage of protein folding events. Is this no longer true David?

Ichthyic: "why is it that anti science nuts always fail to appreciate irony?"

Why is it that Darwinian dogmatists fail to understand that it's possible to have doubts about Darwinian theory and at the same time have respect for science in general?

Bill: “(This is the) second thread (the Mark Twain quote) has come up on in as many days.”

What do you conclude from that, Bill? I really am curious to know.

John Brown: Why is it that Darwinian dogmatists fail to understand that it’s possible to have doubts about Darwinian theory and at the same time have respect for science in general?

JohnBrown: Bill: “(This is the) second thread (the Mark Twain quote) has come up on in as many days.” What do you conclude from that, Bill? I really am curious to know.

Why is it that Darwinian dogmatists fail to understand that it’s possible to have doubts about Darwinian theory and at the same time have respect for science in general?

mplavcan: "Please detail the '50,000 changes' that are so deftly tossed
onto the table."

Berlinski's point was that the number of morphological changes (whatever that number might be) required to get from a land mammal to an aquatic whale is huge, and that the Darwinian account of how those changes occurred glosses over all the details, which casts doubt on the validity of that
account. On the basis of gross anatomy alone, it's apparent that there were a number of daunting tasks that needed to be accomplished to cause the presumed evolution of whales, and each one of those tasks would likely have involved hundreds, if not thousands, of genetic and morphological changes. The Darwinian account of the evolution of whales asks us to believe that blindly operating material mechanisms (primarily, random genetic mutations and natural selection) coordinated the following tasks to bring about the evolution of whales:

1) the gradual adaptive evolution of the complex "equipment" (including the whale's respiratory system) that permits deep diving by whales,

2) the gradual adaptive evolution of the air-borne noise method of communication used by land mammals into the sonar-like underwater method of communication used by whales,

3) the gradual evolution of the ability to feed underwater,

4) the gradual evolution of the ability of whale calves to suckle without taking in sea water,

5) the gradual withering away of hind limbs to vestigial proportions,

6) the evolution of forelimbs by gradual adaptive stages into flippers,

7) the evolution of the mammalian pelvis (which supports a relatively flimsy tail and moves from side to side) by gradual adaptive stages into the bony structure of the whale's large tail (which has no pelvis and moves up and down for propulsion),

8) the evolution of the mammalian skin (which is filled with sweat glands missing in whales) by gradual adaptive stages into the whale's blubber-lined skin (with its strangely fashioned outer surface that helps streamline the flow of water),

9) the evolution by gradual adaptive stages of eyes used for seeing in air into eyes used for seeing under water,

10) and so on - this is not an exhaustive list of the evolutionary tasks that needed to be coordinated to bring about the presumed evolution of whales.

It's possible that whales evolved from some land mammal, but the Darwinian explanation of the evolution of whales attributes that evolution to mechanisms that have only been shown to be capable of producing minor adaptive changes, such as cyclical changes in the size of finches' beaks, or changes in the coloration of peppered moths. Why should we think that
mechanisms capable of such minor adaptive work are also capable of doing the major creative work needed to transform a land-based mammal into a whale, even given immense time in which to operate? The Darwinian explanation of the evolution of whales is so improbable (and so lacking in detail) that only those who are committed to the theory will find the
explanation credible. Others may, with good reason, demur.

Why is it that Darwinian dogmatists fail to understand that it’s possible to have doubts about Darwinian theory and at the same time have respect for science in general?

raven: "Because we know that it is false, a lie. Evolution deniers are almost invariably Xian fundies..."

Well, where I'm concerned, you're quite wrong. I'm a Christian (but not a "fundie") and I have a great deal of respect for science. I also think that the Darwinian explanation for the evolution of life is an affront to reason (except with regard to the microevolutionary claims made by the theory).

Additionally, surveys show that only about 10% of the American people accept the Darwinian explanation of life's evolution (the other 90% attribute life either to special creation or to evolution guided by God). It's quite preposterous to suggest (as you seem to be suggesting) that 90% of the American people are "fundies" and that they have no respect for science.

Now, since what you said was false, should I therefore conclude that it's a lie?

Henry: "There is a HUGE difference between 'having doubts' and accusing tens of thousands of scientists of having made it all up without regard to evidence or basic principles."

Who said anything about evolutionary biologists disregarding evidence or the basic principles of the scientific method? No matter how rigorous their methods might be, when they encounter explanatory difficulties (which is quite obviously the case with regard to life's evolution), they're just as prone as anyone else to engage in wishful speculations, unwarranted extrapolations, and story telling. Scientists are human beings, and they're certainly not above the fallibility that comes from being human. The history of science is chock full of instances where the scientific consensus won by a theory turned out to be wrong. Evolutionary theory (in the macro sense) may turn out to be another one of those instances.

John Brown: The Darwinian explanation of the evolution of whales is so improbable (and so lacking in detail) that only those who are committed to the theory will find the explanation credible. Others may, with good reason, demur.

John Brown Making Stuff Up; Additionally, surveys show that only about 10% of the American people accept the Darwinian explanation of life’s evolution

livescience.com: U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of EvolutionBy Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer A chart showing public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries. The United States ranked near the bottom, beat only by Turkey. Credit: Science Full Size 1 of 1 A chart showing public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries. The United States ranked near the bottom, beat only by Turkey. Credit: Science A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower. Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say. “American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University. The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure. The study found that over the past 20 years: The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent. The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however. And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent. Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did. The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science. Religion belief and evolution The researchers also compared 10 independent variables—including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or “genetic literacy”—between adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution. The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs—defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer—were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.

Bill Gascoyne:

JohnBrown: Bill: “(This is the) second thread (the Mark Twain quote) has come up on in as many days.” What do you conclude from that, Bill? I really am curious to know.

That people copy one another? That some people like to try argumentation from authority? Admittedly, Twain is eminently quotable, but given his views on organized religion I find it ironic that anti-science types turn to him. I feel no compelling need to draw any profound conclusion from the repetition, I simply note it. Also, my attempt to post a response on the other thread didn't go through for some reason, so I feel some small degree of gratification that I was able to respond here.

Well, where I’m concerned, you’re quite wrong. I’m a Christian (but not a “fundie”) and I have a great deal of respect for science. I also think that the Darwinian explanation for the evolution of life is an affront to reason (except with regard to the microevolutionary claims made by the theory).

raven: "Actually the US acceptance of evolution is 40%."

Yes, but that acceptance rate includes both theistic evolution and Darwinian evolution. In most of the surveys I've seen, only about 10% of Americans accept Darwinian (or wholly naturalistic) evolution. For example:

"About 39 percent believe in a form of so-called 'theistic evolution,' where evolutionary processes developed over millions of years but were 'guided' by God."

"Only about 10 percent subscribe to evolution without any form of divine guidance or intervention..."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/cretinism.htm

John Brown: "The Darwinian explanation of the evolution of whales is so improbable (and so lacking in detail) that only those who are committed to the theory will find the explanation credible. Others may, with good reason, demur."

raven: "This is just the old fallacy, Arguments from Ignorance and Incredulity. 'I cant see how my foot evolved so god exists.' Proves nothing."

I wasn't arguing that the improbability of Darwinian explanations for macroevolutionary events entails that those explanations must be false (neither was I making the ridiculous argument that you attribute to me). But I was suggesting that unless some rather extraordinary evidence is presented to corroborate those improbable explanations, people are entitled to doubt the validity of those explanations. That's rational incredulity, not mere personal incredulity. It's a demand for convincing evidence to support an improbable explanation, not an assertion that the improbable explanation must be false.

Can you suggest why the credulity of Darwinian true believers is epistemically superior to the incredulity of skeptics? Can you suggest why "I believe this is true, therefore it is true" is logically superior to "I don't believe this is true, therefore it isn't true"? It seems clear to me that an argument from credulity is no improvement on an argument from incredulity. Neither argument carries any logical weight.

In case you haven't figured it out, Calvin and John Brown are the same person.

Calvin/John Brown said: But I was suggesting that unless some rather extraordinary evidence is presented to corroborate those improbable explanations, people are entitled to doubt the validity of those explanations.

John Brown: "Evolutionary theory is also contradicted by many facts (such as the failure of the fossil record to match the continuum of life predicted by evolutionary theory)."

Science Avenger: "What failure?"

The failure noted by Darwin: "But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin thought that the fossil record failed to match the gradual continuum of life predicted by his theory because of "extreme imperfection of the geological record," and that could be the case. Skeptics, however, are entitled to think that the problem is not with the fossils; it's with the theory. If evolution is the gradual, virtually imperceptible transformation of organisms over time, why
don't we see such evolution in the fossil record?

John Brown: "...descent with modification is consistent with both evolutionary theory and ID theory."

Science Avenger: "No it isn't."

Actually, it is. Evolutionary biologist Tim Berra inadvertently demonstrated that this is so when he used the evolution of the Chevrolet Corvette to defend Darwinian evolution against critics. He wrote: "If you compare a 1953 Corvette and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and
a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious." It's also obvious that the descent with modification seen in succeeding models of Corvettes is not Darwinian in nature, rather it's driven by intelligent design. ID theorists don't take issue with descent with modification; they instead take issue with the proposition that Darwinian mechanisms are the sole causes of descent with modification.

Science Avenger: "ID theory (if I may elevate it by calling it that) does not predict the sloppy, inefficient 'designs' we see in nature."

Here you're wallowing in one of the more common misconceptions among critics of ID: that the phrase "intelligent design" signifies design
effected with great mastery and efficiency. In point of fact, all the phrase signifies is design effected by an intelligent agent (or cause) irrespective of that agent's mastery of design.

Science Avenger: "ID theory would expect to see radical novelties and borrowed successes, yet that is exactly what we do NOT see."

Oh? The biosphere is chock full of "radical novelties" and "borrowed successes" (what does homology signify if not "borrowed successes"?).

John Brown: "The facts also make a fairly persuasive case for the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to cause microevolution. But there are few facts supporting the macroevolutionary claims of evolutionary theory."

Science Avenger: "Same facts, same mechanism, same strong case. If I can walk across the street, I can walk across town."

Not if no path across town is available. Proponents of Darwinian evolution think they've refuted Behe's argument from irreducible complexity by invoking the co-option of systems that perform other functions. For example, they contend that the type III secretory system (TTSS) was
co-opted (along with other unidentified subsystems) to form the bacterial flagellum. Voila!!! Case closed on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But as design theorists Wm. Dembski and Jonathan Wells observe, "(s)uch an argument is transparently feeble. Indeed, multipart, tightly
integrated functional systems almost invariably contain multipart subsystems that could serve some different function. At best, the TTSS represents one possible step in the indirect Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But that still wouldn't constitute a solution to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. What's needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we've discovered the Hawaiian Islands."

Science Avenger: "Very few of us who accept evolution have a commitment to a material explanation of life."

You should take this up with Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin (a leading Darwinian biologist), who wrote (in an essay titled "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997):

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

The emotional ferocity of proponents of Darwinian theory make it abundantly clear that they're defending a worldview - materialism - not a mere scientific theory. No sensible person gets all worked up if a scientific theory meets with opposition. After all, science is supposed to be a
self-correcting enterprise that welcomes challenges to prevailing theories. In most areas of scientific inquiry, that's what science is. But as blogs like Panda'sThumb and Pharyngula demonstrate beyond dispute, proponents of
Darwinian evolution will not abide any fundamental challenges to the prevailing evolutionary paradigm. One couldn't ask for a better example of a science that has devolved into dogmatism than evolutionary biology.

Richard: "How do you know there is not extraordinary evidence?"

If extraordinary evidence exists for, say, the presumed evolution of whales by Darwinian means, let's see it (keep in mind that the fossil record is silent on the mechanism[s] of evolution). If extraordinary evidence for Darwinian evolution exists, it ought to be available to the general public in books written for them. General readers shouldn't be expected to wade through the "thousands of papers published every year that support the theory of evolution." I've read some of the books (e.g., Miller, Gould, Dawkins, Mayr) that proponents of Darwinian theory write for the general public, and I've not seen any extraordinary evidence for their macroevolutionary claims in those books. In fact, I've seen precious little evidence at all for those claims. If you have, what is it?

Can you suggest why the credulity of Darwinian true believers is epistemically superior to the incredulity of skeptics? Can you suggest why “I believe this is true, therefore it is true” is logically superior to “I don’t believe this is true, therefore it isn’t true”? It seems clear to me that an argument from credulity is no improvement on an argument from incredulity. Neither argument carries any logical weight.

In case you haven’t figured it out, Calvin and John Brown are the same person.

So, then, John Brown/Calvin, what excuses do you have to wish away the numerous fossils of whales, mesonychids, and primitive semi-aquatic artiodactyls, as well as genetic evidence that places whales as being the sister taxon of hippopotamii?

John Brown lying repeatedly: The emotional ferocity of proponents of Darwinian theory make it abundantly clear that they’re defending a worldview - materialism - not a mere scientific theory.

Creo troll's mantra: [Insert irrelevant bible verses here] "You atheists who believe in the Darwinian Religion are all going to hell with all the Fake Xians(TM).

IANAC, but the ATPase movie seems to get the chemical perspective better as a layman would expect it, with random movements and some hints of crowding in the cellular environment.

Unfortunately AFAIU the efficiency of the modern ATPase comes from that it seldom or never misses or reverses its next motion, so again the movie leaves you with this image of overly perfection. But the related science isn't so impressive as of yet, as it opens up some possibilities but leaves much to be done.

Still, baby steps, and PZ had the opportunity to show some cool images. And of course attacking the creationist whipping of an old horse with science yet again is always rewarding in itself.

[Falsehoods on MET and complete strawmen added for good measure.]

John Brown never did answer my simple minded questions. And never will.

He denied being a fundie cultist but he is channeling the straight cultist party line. That was a lie.

Given fundie predictability, he most likely believes, Catholics and mainline protestants are Fake Xians(TM), so Real Xians(TM) probably run around 5-10% of the 2.1 billion who claim Xianity.

He is also most likely a Rapture monkey who can't wait for god to show up and kill all the atheistic scientists. The earth and the other 6.7 billion dead people will just be unfortunate collateral damage.

Whatever, I hope he doesn't live near me. These people are spooky.

The emotional ferocity of proponents of Darwinian theory make it abundantly clear that they’re defending a worldview - materialism - not a mere scientific theory. No sensible person gets all worked up if a scientific theory meets with opposition.

Mike: "You don’t just brush (an argument for Darwinian evolution) aside because it contradicts your sectarian dogma."

I don't. My beef is that the claims made for the presumed creative abilities of Darwinian mechanisms outrun the evidence.

Mike: "It isn’t a matter of 'belief', it’s a matter of evidence."

I agree, and since the evidence for the macroevolutionary claims of neo-Darwinian theory is so pathetic, I don't find those claims at all persuasive.

Mike: "The question you have to answer is, given everything we already know about the facts of evolution and the behaviors of evolving systems at every level, what physical barriers do you see that prevent such processes from continuing to operate until differences in evolving organisms become large enough to classify them as separate species?"

I've alread answered this question. What we "know" about Darwinian mechanisms is that they can produce minor adaptive changes that leave organisms essentially unchanged. It's never been shown that those mechanisms can act creatively to bring about the evolution of one kind of organism (say, a fish) into a different kind of organism (say, an amphibian), or that those mechanisms can bring about the evolution of complex biological systems (especially systems that are irreducibly complex).

Mike: "The next question you have to answer is what evidence do you have for your alternative supernatural explanation, and how does your explanation do a better job of elucidating the mechanisms and processes that underlie what we actually observe in the fossil record and in the history of the universe?"

ID theory doesn't offer a "supernatural explanation" (neither do I). It instead holds that many biological structures can best be explained by appealing to an intelligent cause (or causes) rather than by appealing to unintelligent material causes. Whether that intelligence is natural or supernatural is something that ID theory doesn't presume to decide. The leap from ID theory to the supernatural is a leap taken for theological, not scientific, reasons.

Mike: "You should at least realize that, as you type your objections to science on a computer, that there is an elaborate structure of scientific understanding that makes the existence of that computer possible. That same scientific understanding also supports and explains evolution."

Good grief. The validity of scientific understanding that makes the existence of a computer possible has no bearing on the validity of neo-Darwinian theory. Astoundingly, you can write this while presuming to lecture me on logic.

[Falsehoods on MET.]

Who said anything about evolutionary biologists disregarding evidence or the basic principles of the scientific method?

Evolutionary theory is also contradicted by many facts (such as the failure of the fossil record to match the continuum of life predicted by evolutionary theory).

The history of science is chock full of instances where the scientific consensus won by a theory turned out to be wrong. Evolutionary theory (in the macro sense) may turn out to be another one of those instances.

The emotional ferocity of proponents of Darwinian theory make it abundantly clear that they’re defending a worldview - materialism - not a mere scientific theory. No sensible person gets all worked up if a scientific theory meets with opposition.

In case you haven’t figured it out, Calvin and John Brown are the same person.

6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

raven: "John Brown never did answer my simple minded questions. And never will."

If you want to claim that you're simple-minded, I won't dispute it.

In any event, your "arguments" have taken the predictable course of abandoning substance in favor of personally attacking someone who doesn't agree with you about the merits of neo-Darwinian theory. Your fantasy that I'm a witless "fundie" who hates science (a fantasy shared here by others), and your increasing tendency (like that of others here) to talk about me rather than about the points I've made, brings to mind something the Discovery Institute staff wrote in response to hysterical, paranoid characterizations of the so-called "Wedge Document"....

"It is now long past time that our intellectual opponents addressed the evidential case that we are making and the challenges that now face neo-Darwinism and other similarly simplistic materialistic theories. The nearly obsessive focus in some quarters on our sources of funding, our motivations, and our allegedly sinister plans betrays a deep intellectual insecurity in the Darwinist community. Those who have scientific arguments make them. Those who do not, change the subject and speculate about motives, conspiracies, and personal associations. We talk about evidence and ideas; our opponents want to talk about us. Indeed, our Darwinist colleagues and some sympathizers in the media have developed a penchant for avoiding discussion about real scientific and philosophical issues. Instead, they have come to rely upon ad hominem attacks, motive-mongering, conspiracy theories, guilt by association and other tactics of intimidation - thus distracting attention from a failing system of thought."

I’ve alread answered this question. What we “know” about Darwinian mechanisms is that they can produce minor adaptive changes that leave organisms essentially unchanged. It’s never been shown that those mechanisms can act creatively to bring about the evolution of one kind of organism (say, a fish) into a different kind of organism (say, an amphibian), or that those mechanisms can bring about the evolution of complex biological systems (especially systems that are irreducibly complex).

Whether that intelligence is natural or supernatural is something that ID theory doesn’t presume to decide.

The leap from ID theory to the supernatural is a leap taken for theological, not scientific, reasons.

Good grief. The validity of scientific understanding that makes the existence of a computer possible has no bearing on the validity of neo-Darwinian theory. Astoundingly, you can write this while presuming to lecture me on logic.

I've had enough. Like every other Darwinist blog, Panda'sThumb exists primarily to allow true believers to congratulate themselves on how smart and knowledgeable they are while smearing everyone who doesn't share their faith. I'll leave you to your group grope while wondering why you're all so intent on arguing in ways that ensure that you'll never win any converts to your faith in neo-Darwinism. If the number of Americans who accept neo-Darwinism is around 10% (and it is - theistic evolution is not Darwinian evolution), that percentage will not be driven upwards by blogs like Panda'sThumb.

I'll leave you to your nonsenses.

Like every other Darwinist blog, Panda’sThumb exists primarily to allow true believers to congratulate themselves on how smart and knowledgeable they are while smearing everyone who doesn’t share their faith.

Mike Elzinga:

Like every other Darwinist blog, Panda’sThumb exists primarily to allow true believers to congratulate themselves on how smart and knowledgeable they are while smearing everyone who doesn’t share their faith.

Yet another mischaracterization of science and the process of scientific vetting of ideas. Science is not “faith”. It is based on evidence. Peer-review and vetting of ideas and evidence are not “smearing”. This is another mischaracterization of science. Place a scientist in the crucible of peer-review and what emerges is better science and a better scientist. Expose an ID/Creationist or other pseudo-scientist to even a hint of that crucible and what emerges is a whining, self-pitying child with a persecution complex. The public is welcomed and entitled to an understanding of science; after all, they pay for a lot of it. But science pretenders and personality cult leaders who pounce with mischaracterizations of science and refuse to be responsible for their claims will get the full blast furnace effect of “peer”-review.

I can't parse John Brown/Calvin's rantings: did he ever bother provide an excuse to invalidate all of the whale, mesonychid, and primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl fossils found, as well as genetic evidence that places whales as the sister-taxon of hippopotamii?

Stanton: I can't parse John Brown/Calvin's rantings: did he ever bother provide an excuse to invalidate all of the whale, mesonychid, and primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl fossils found, as well as genetic evidence that places whales as the sister-taxon of hippopotamii?

did he ever bother provide an excuse to invalidate all of the whale, mesonychid, and primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl fossils found,

JGB,

Sorry, I didn't see your question until now.

There are actually many different molecular chaperones that have been identified. According to Molecular Cell Biology, Sixth edition (Lodish et. al.):

"In bacteria, 85 percent of the proteins are released from their chaparones and proceed to fold normally; an even higher percentage of proteins in eukaryotes follow this pathway."

And then of course there are chaperonins as well.

I can't recall right now why this topic was brought up on this thread, but it seems that almost all proteins fold in a distinctly nonrandom fashion, most with significant help along the way.

John Brown: “Evolutionary theory is also contradicted by ... the failure of the fossil record to match the continuum of life predicted by evolutionary theory” Science Avenger: “What failure?” JB: The failure noted by Darwin: ... If evolution is the gradual, virtually imperceptible transformation of organisms over time, why don’t we see such evolution in the fossil record?

John Brown: Actually, [descent with modification] is [consistent with both evolutionary theory and ID theory]. Evolutionary biologist Tim Berra inadvertently demonstrated that this is so when he used the evolution of the Chevrolet Corvette to defend Darwinian evolution against critics.

JB: In point of fact, all [ID] signifies is design effected by an intelligent agent (or cause) irrespective of that agent’s mastery of design.

JB: The biosphere is chock full of “radical novelties” and “borrowed successes” (what does homology signify if not “borrowed successes”?).

Science Avenger: [On macro vs micro] If I can walk across the street, I can walk across town. JB: Not if no path across town is available... What’s needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we’ve discovered the Hawaiian Islands.”

Science Avenger: “Very few of us who accept evolution have a commitment to a material explanation of life.” JB: You should take this up with Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin ...

The emotional ferocity of proponents of Darwinian theory make it abundantly clear that they’re defending a worldview - materialism - not a mere scientific theory. No sensible person gets all worked up if a scientific theory meets with opposition.

It’s never been shown that those mechanisms can act creatively to bring about the evolution of one kind of organism (say, a fish) into a different kind of organism (say, an amphibian)...

I’ve had enough. Like every other Darwinist blog, Panda’sThumb exists primarily to allow true believers to congratulate themselves on how smart and knowledgeable they are while smearing everyone who doesn’t share their faith.

JB: raven: “John Brown never did answer my simple minded questions. And never will.” If you want to claim that you’re simple-minded, I won’t dispute it.

In any event, your “arguments” have taken the predictable course of abandoning substance in favor of personally attacking someone who doesn’t agree with you about the merits of neo-Darwinian theory.

I couldn't resist another peek at the wild-eyed, teeth-clenched, foaming-at-the-mouth commentary here. It's nothing if not a barrel of laughs...

Stanton: "I can’t parse John Brown/Calvin’s rantings: did he ever bother provide an excuse to invalidate all of the whale, mesonychid, and primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl fossils found, as well as genetic evidence that places whales as the sister-taxon of hippopotamii?"

Actually, I made no attempt to "invalidate all of the...fossils found." The fossils, if interpreted in the light of neo-Darwinian assumptions, can be seen as evidence for descent with modification. They do not, however, provide evidence that Darwinian mechanisms were the cause of descent with modification. Neither does "genetic evidence that places whales as the sister-taxon of hippopotamii." Homology (whether morphological or genetic) does not reveal the causes of descent with modification.

It's world-class question begging to say that the fossil record "confirms" descent with modification, therefore descent with modification was caused by Darwinian mechanisms. Apparently none of the regulars here grasp that descent with modification is merely descriptive, not explanatory. The causes of descent with modification must be given (and confidently confirmed) before an explanation is at hand.

Science Avenger: "Fact is we do see evolution in the fossil record, but you have to be willing to look to see it."

The fact is, we don't see what caused evolution in the fossil record, which is, of course, the point.

Science Avenger: "Here we see the creationist authoritarian mindset at work: an authority said it, therefore it is true (as long as the authority agrees with me). Needless to say, since automobiles do not reproduce, their changes cannot accurately be called 'descent with modification' since there is no 'descent'. I’d also bet a $100 to $1 that Tim Berra would agree with me on this."

"If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette,side by side, then a 1954 and 1955 model and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious." - Tim Berra, "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism," p.117

You lose. I'll take the $100 in cash. Let me have your email address so I can send you my mailing address.

Science Avenger: "If you claim no path across town is available, then the burdon is on you to show that none is available."

If a person claims that there is a path across town, he's obligated to show that the path exists before he has refuted the person who says that there is no path across town.

raven: "You never presented any substance."

What a hoot!!! Here is your idea of "substance"....

"John Brown never did answer my simple minded questions. And never will.

"He denied being a fundie cultist but he is channeling the straight cultist party line. That was a lie.

"Given fundie predictability, he most likely believes, Catholics and mainline protestants are Fake Xians™, so Real Xians™ probably run around 5-10% of the 2.1 billion who claim Xianity.

"He is also most likely a Rapture monkey who can’t wait for god to show up and kill all the atheistic scientists. The earth and the other 6.7 billion dead people will just be unfortunate collateral damage.

"Whatever, I hope he doesn’t live near me. These people are spooky."

I invite any fair-minded person to compare the things I've posted here to your rantings to see which of us was trying to be substantive.

raven: "After a few dozen routine lies and some name calling ['Darwinists', 'atheists'] we all get bored and call troll."

More perceptive readers will have noticed that I didn't call anyone an "atheist." I don't think I called anyone a "Darwinist" either, although I'm not sure why someone who believes in neo-Darwinian theory would be insulted by the term. You were so intent on attributing all kinds of wild statements to me that you failed to notice that I didn't actually make those statements. It's futile debating someone (like you) who is constantly (and falsely) putting words into the mouths of others.

raven: "I’m really baffled why JB and FL won’t answer simple questions about their cults and cult beliefs."

The answer is easy enough. I don't have any respect for a person who speaks of my faith as a fallacious cult. I'm not motivated to honor such a person by responding to his sneering questions.

JohnBrown: Stanton: "I can’t parse John Brown/Calvin’s rantings: did he ever bother provide an excuse to invalidate all of the whale, mesonychid, and primitive, semi-aquatic artiodactyl fossils found, as well as genetic evidence that places whales as the sister-taxon of hippopotamii?" Actually, I made no attempt to "invalidate all of the...fossils found." The fossils, if interpreted in the light of neo-Darwinian assumptions, can be seen as evidence for descent with modification. They do not, however, provide evidence that Darwinian mechanisms were the cause of descent with modification. Neither does "genetic evidence that places whales as the sister-taxon of hippopotamii." Homology (whether morphological or genetic) does not reveal the causes of descent with modification. It's world-class question begging to say that the fossil record "confirms" descent with modification, therefore descent with modification was caused by Darwinian mechanisms. Apparently none of the regulars here grasp that descent with modification is merely descriptive, not explanatory. The causes of descent with modification must be given (and confidently confirmed) before an explanation is at hand.

JohnBrown: The fact is, we don’t see what caused evolution in the fossil record, which is, of course, the point.

JB: The answer is easy enough. I don’t have any respect for a person who speaks of my faith as a fallacious cult. I’m not motivated to honor such a person by responding to his sneering questions.

There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I’m keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 8 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I’d post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Up to 9 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven’t even gotten to the secondary science school teachers. And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead. Note: Some people have since contacted me. Death threats are common and most do not bother going public.

One more for the road. This thread has run down to nothing but a flame war.

It still is very peculiar that the cultists won't admit their beliefs. This is a smoking gun.

Particularly since Evangelical Xians are supposed to all be spreading "The Way".

JB could be a Moonie, Scientologist, or possibly a J-Dub. Or something I'm totally unfamilar with. Church of the Aryan Xian brotherhood, Church of the Assassins for Jesus, or one of the Utah polygamist cults, fundie Mormon.

I can now guarantee that there is something spooky wrong about JB.

We will never know and it is for the best. Cults have a bad reputation for pointless violence, murders, and mass suicides and of those I listed above, some of them have a history of homicide.

John Brown said: They [the transitional fossils found] do not, however, provide evidence that Darwinian mechanisms were the cause of descent with modification.

we don’t see what caused evolution in the fossil record, which is, of course, the point.

Science Avenger: “Here we see the creationist authoritarian mindset at work: an authority said it, therefore it is true (as long as the authority agrees with me). Needless to say, since automobiles do not reproduce, their changes cannot accurately be called ‘descent with modification’ since there is no ‘descent’. I’d also bet a $100 to $1 that Tim Berra would agree with me on this.” JB: “If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette,side by side, then a 1954 and 1955 model and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.” - Tim Berra, “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism,” p.117 You lose. I’ll take the $100 in cash. Let me have your email address so I can send you my mailing address.

Science Avenger: “If you claim no path across town is available, then the burdon is on you to show that none is available.” If a person claims that there is a path across town, he’s obligated to show that the path exists before he has refuted the person who says that there is no path across town.

For that matter, just give me ONE land animal over 10 pounds that has more than four limbs.

JohnBrown said: I’ve not seen any extraordinary evidence for their macroevolutionary claims in those books. In fact, I’ve seen precious little evidence at all for those claims. If you have, what is it?

Richard Simons:

JohnBrown said: I’ve not seen any extraordinary evidence for their macroevolutionary claims in those books. In fact, I’ve seen precious little evidence at all for those claims. If you have, what is it?

There is no point in trying to answer until you answer my question 'What would you consider to be extraordinary evidence?' as anything I offer up would be met with 'That is not extraordinary enough'.

Unfortunately, it seems that John Brown is correct. The fact that we can reconstruct the pattern of evolution in the fossil record does not by itself allow us to identify the perecise processes responsible. However, it does indeed confirm that the processes occurred and that they did in fact give rise to the diversity of life on earth and it allows us to test hypotheses concerning the processes involved.

The processes undoubtedly involved random mutations, (including some in developmentally important genes), followed by selection in a changing environment. We do not yet have all of the molecular details yet, that is why real scientists are still doing real research in this area.

As for the question about evidence for macroevolution, I would suggest that you read the Talk Origins archive on the subject. For example, the genetic evidence includes (but is not limited to): the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that unites all life forms; the shared SINE insertions in whales and terrestrial artiodactyls and many other groups; and the shared mitochondrial gene orders among the species of many animal phyla. The evidence is as diverse as it is compelling.

Those who claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution must come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence, something that no creationist I have ever encountered has been able to do. The findings in the field of genetics have dramatically confirmed the theory of descent with modification. Genetics also holds the key to understanding the molecular processes responsible for evolution.

Apparently none of the regulars here grasp that descent with modification is merely descriptive, not explanatory. The causes of descent with modification must be given (and confidently confirmed) before an explanation is at hand.

The fact is, we don’t see what caused evolution in the fossil record, which is, of course, the point.

If a person claims that there is a path across town, he’s obligated to show that the path exists before he has refuted the person who says that there is no path across town.

Don't forget, Mike, that, whenever Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists are asked to provide a working alternative explanation, they always get flustered when someone correctly points out that GOD/DESIGNERDIDIT is not a working alternative.

Unfortunately, it seems that John Brown is correct.

The fact that we can reconstruct the pattern of evolution in the fossil record does not by itself allow us to identify the precise processes responsible.

The processes undoubtedly involved random mutations, (including some in developmentally important genes), followed by selection in a changing environment. We do not yet have all of the molecular details yet, that is why real scientists are still doing real research in this area.

Those who claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution must come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence, something that no creationist I have ever encountered has been able to do.

Stanton: Don't forget, Mike, that, whenever Intelligent Design proponents and Creationists are asked to provide a working alternative explanation, they always get flustered when someone correctly points out that GOD/DESIGNERDIDIT is not a working alternative.

Got my second wind...

Stanton: "...if all of the similarities noted in these fossils do not prove and do not confirm that whales evolved from primitive artiodactyls related to mesonychids and hippopotamii, what do they prove?"

Those similarities suggest, but do not "prove," descent with modification. They provide no insight into the cause(s) of descent with modification, which is what we want to know.

Stanton: "You fail to realize that scientists and Science are under absolutely no obligation to eject perfectly valid scientific theories simply because the resulting explanations clash with your own misinterpretations of your holy book."

If "perfectly valid" means confirmed (or proved), then neo-Darwinism is far from being "perfectly valid," as any honest evolutionary biologist (such as Lynn Margulis) will admit. Neo-Darwinism is widely accepted among biologists (most of whom have no expertise in evolutionary biology), but widespread acceptance does not make a theory "perfectly valid." Also, since I've said absolutely nothing here about the Bible or my interpretations of it, can you suggest how you could possibly know that I'm misinterpreting it or how you could possibly know that my "misinterpretations" of the Bible are why I find neo-Darwinian theory unconvincing? Rather than presuming to be a mindreader, why don't you simply respond to things that I actually say?

Stanton: "...they are especially not going to abandon perfectly valid scientific theories when you are unwilling to provide a superior alternative."

I think that with respect to explaining the origin of complex biological systems, or the origin of complex specified biological information, ID theory is a "superior alternative."
I doubt that the neo-Darwinian explanation of those things will long survive our improving understanding of biological complexity (especially at the molecular level) and the nature of information (which is the very basis of life), although the theory will be propped up for some time to come by the materialistic philosophy that provides its main support.

raven: "This thread has run down to nothing but a flame war."

Spoken by the person who has done the most to spark the fire and fan the flames.

JohnBrown: Got my second wind... Stanton: "...if all of the similarities noted in these fossils do not prove and do not confirm that whales evolved from primitive artiodactyls related to mesonychids and hippopotamii, what do they prove?" Those similarities suggest, but do not "prove," descent with modification. They provide no insight into the cause(s) of descent with modification, which is what we want to know.

Stanton: "You fail to realize that scientists and Science are under absolutely no obligation to eject perfectly valid scientific theories simply because the resulting explanations clash with your own misinterpretations of your holy book." If "perfectly valid" means confirmed (or proved), then neo-Darwinism is far from being "perfectly valid," as any honest evolutionary biologist (such as Lynn Margulis) will admit. Neo-Darwinism is widely accepted among biologists (most of whom have no expertise in evolutionary biology), but widespread acceptance does not make a theory "perfectly valid." Also, since I've said absolutely nothing here about the Bible or my interpretations of it, can you suggest how you could possibly know that I'm misinterpreting it or how you could possibly know that my "misinterpretations" of the Bible are why I find neo-Darwinian theory unconvincing? Rather than presuming to be a mindreader, why don't you simply respond to things that I actually say?

Stanton: "...they are especially not going to abandon perfectly valid scientific theories when you are unwilling to provide a superior alternative." I think that with respect to explaining the origin of complex biological systems, or the origin of complex specified biological information, ID theory is a "superior alternative." I doubt that the neo-Darwinian explanation of those things will long survive our improving understanding of biological complexity (especially at the molecular level) and the nature of information (which is the very basis of life), although the theory will be propped up for some time to come by the materialistic philosophy that provides its main support.

JohnBrown: Got my second wind... Stanton: "...if all of the similarities noted in these fossils do not prove and do not confirm that whales evolved from primitive artiodactyls related to mesonychids and hippopotamii, what do they prove?" Those similarities suggest, but do not "prove," descent with modification. They provide no insight into the cause(s) of descent with modification, which is what we want to know.

Stanton: "You fail to realize that scientists and Science are under absolutely no obligation to eject perfectly valid scientific theories simply because the resulting explanations clash with your own misinterpretations of your holy book." If "perfectly valid" means confirmed (or proved), then neo-Darwinism is far from being "perfectly valid," as any honest evolutionary biologist (such as Lynn Margulis) will admit. Neo-Darwinism is widely accepted among biologists (most of whom have no expertise in evolutionary biology), but widespread acceptance does not make a theory "perfectly valid." Also, since I've said absolutely nothing here about the Bible or my interpretations of it, can you suggest how you could possibly know that I'm misinterpreting it or how you could possibly know that my "misinterpretations" of the Bible are why I find neo-Darwinian theory unconvincing? Rather than presuming to be a mindreader, why don't you simply respond to things that I actually say?

Stanton: "...they are especially not going to abandon perfectly valid scientific theories when you are unwilling to provide a superior alternative." I think that with respect to explaining the origin of complex biological systems, or the origin of complex specified biological information, ID theory is a "superior alternative." I doubt that the neo-Darwinian explanation of those things will long survive our improving understanding of biological complexity (especially at the molecular level) and the nature of information (which is the very basis of life), although the theory will be propped up for some time to come by the materialistic philosophy that provides its main support.

JohnBrown: "They [the transitional fossils found] do not, however, provide evidence that Darwinian mechanisms were the cause of descent with modification."

Science Avenger: "This is akin to the witch doctor that claims both the spell and arsenic are required to kill the patient."

Your analogy doesn't work. Here's one that does: "This is akin to the medical examiner who claims that the evidence that a man died from arsenic poisoning does not, by itself, provide evidence of what caused the man to be poisoned."

JB: "...we don’t see what caused evolution in the fossil record, which is, of course, the point."

Science Avenger: "When we see what we predict in the fossil record, yes, sorry, we are seeing evidence for what caused it. Finds like Tiktaalik are impossible to explain otherwise."

You still don't get it. The fossil record suggests descent with modification, but the fossil record does not confirm descent with modification due to the circularity in reasoning involved in labeling transitional forms (neo-Darwinian theory "justifies" the labeling, which in turn "justifies" the theory). Descent with modification is a description of life's evolution, not an explanation of it. Perhaps the following will help you to grasp the distinction between a description and an explanation...

Imagine that you're jogging along a beach at the base of some towering cliffs. You come upon a group of people huddled around the broken and bleeding body of a dead man. You ask one of the men in the group: "What happened?" He replies: "That lady over there on that big rock said she was sunning herself on the rock when that guy came crashing down beside her. He must have fallen from the cliff. Scared her out of her wits. Killed him."

Now, do you have an explanation of the man's death? Of course not; you simply have a description of it. To explain the man's death, whatever caused him to fall from the cliff must be ascertained. Like every other explanation, the explanation of the man's death will appeal to one or more of the three explantory modes available: chance, necessity, or design.

1) Chance: Did the man accidentally fall from the cliff?

2) Necessity: Do we live in the kind of universe where people who stand at the top of cliffs always fall to their death?

3) Design: Was the man pushed off the cliff? Did he deliberately jump off in an act of suicide?

Once you nail down which of those causes put the man over the cliff, then you'll have an explanation of his death. In the meantime, all you've got is a description. "The man fell to his death" is a description, not an explanation. Similarly, "Life evolved by way of descent with modification" is a description, not an explanation. Descriptions can be informative, but they're not explanatory. No matter how persuasive you find the evidence for common descent, that evidence does not serve to establish the cause(s) of common descent.

Science Avenger: "I didn’t say you weren’t capable of taking (Berra's) comments out of context and pretending they back your view when they don’t."

I never claimed that Berra agreed with me about evolution. I instead said that with his Corvette analogy to descent with modification, he inadvertently illustrated that descent with modification is just as compatible with intelligent design theory as it is with neo-Darwinism.

JB: "If a person claims that there is a path across town, he’s obligated to show that the path exists before he has refuted the person who says that there is no path across town."

Science Avenger: "Wrong. You have to support your claims. This is more standard creationist bullshit, always trying to shift the burdon of proof to everyone else. If you claim something is impossible, the burdon is on you."

The situation is like this: Critics of neo-Darwinism ask evolutionary biologists to provide at least one detailed, testable evolutionary pathway by which a complex biological system might have evolved by Darwinian means. In short, they're asking neo-Darwinists to validate one of their positive claims.

In reply, neo-Darwinists say that their explanation of the origin of a complex biological system will stand until all conceivable Darwinian pathways to the system have been ruled out. In short, they're demanding that critics show that the origin of a complex biological system by Darwinian means is impossible, which is, of course, an impossibility. In making this demand, neo-Darwinists insulate their theory from falsification, thereby making the theory unscientific (in accordance with Popper's criterion of potential falsifiability).

I will repeat my question. What would you consider to be extraordinary evidence for macroevolution?.

I would also like to know in what way Intelligent Design 'theory' is superior and, indeed, just what the theory states. Like all the creationists who visit here, you are very good at asking questions but also consistently evade giving answers.

Richard: "What would you consider to be extraordinary evidence?"

Well, neo-Darwinism contends that random genetic mutations are the primary source of biological variations, and that natural selection and other material mechanisms (such as genetic drift and gene flow), acting on randomly-induced variations, fully explain all of life's diversity and complexity. If that is so, then the history of life should show the gradual transformation of organisms, where the first organism in an evolutionary lineage is barely distinguishable from the second organism, which is barely distinguishable from the third, which is barely distinguishable from the fourth, and so on and so on through thousands (if not millions) of generations, with minor adaptive changes accumulating until the "final product" has emerged from all of that unguided evolution. If such an unambiguous lineage could ever by discovered among the fossils, and if geneticists could show the mutations that induced the progression of changes seen in that lineage, then that would constitute (in my eyes, at least) extraordinary evidence for the claims of neo-Darwinism.

David Stanton: "We do not yet have all of the molecular details yet, that is why real scientists are still doing real research in this area."

This is what is known as "promissory materialism." When scientists refuse to budge from promissory materialism, they convert methodological naturalism (which is scientifically legitimate) into metaphysical naturalism (which is not). Certainly science can't directly observe or test the supernatural, but if scientists assume that the supernatural neither exists nor has affected the natural world, they risk misconstruing reality. The methods of science may produce inferences to either nonmaterial or supernatural causes (as is the case with Big Bang theory), but if scientists refuse to tolerate such inferences, they make science the handmaiden of materialistic philosophy, not the philosophically unbiased search for the truth about the natural world that it's supposed to be.

When science is committed to materialism, it has only two explanatory modes available to it: chance and necessity. But if science were philosophically unbiased, it would also have the third explanatory mode - design - available to it. I think science is best served by an explanatory arsenal that is full, not by an explanatory arsenal that is only 2/3 full. The only risk science would take by including design in its explantory toolkit is that design might often prove to be superfluous, thus - by Occam's razor - effectively refuted. But if science refuses to even consider design, it takes the much larger risk of misconstruing reality. I prefer a science that delivers explanations that can confidently be described as true, not a science that delivers explanations that can only be called scientific (which is the case when science operates with an explanatory arsenal that's only 2/3 full).

The fact that John Brown brings up and quibbles so ferociously about how an "explanation is not a description" is a monument to his own hypocrisy, especially since one can not explain a process or scenario without describing it, and that describing a scenario inevitably causes the target audience to formulate explanations about it, AND that, in his guise of "Calvin," he went on and on and on castigating us for using semantics games with which to bully the poor, helpless Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents.

Furthermore, when anyone brings out the nonsense about philosophical materialism as an argument, that means that the person is mad because no one will let him use GODDIDIT as an explanation, scientific or otherwise, nevermind that GODDIDIT has not been a satisfactory scientific explanation or description for the last 500 years.

That, and he never bothers to explain why refusing to rule out supernatural causes is a bad thing for Science, even though supernatural causes are outside the perception and detection ability of scientists.

What John Brown does not care to realize in his nonsensical admonishments about the dangers of wedding science to "materialism" is that if scientists are obligated to not rule out supernatural causes, how would anything get accomplished in anything?

So, then, according to John Brown, should a person come into a hospital displaying all of the symptoms of tuberculosis, the doctors should hold off administering antibiotics or even quarantining the patient until they have checked to see if Satan or the demon Eurynome isn't strangling the victim's astral form or not.

Or, when farming corn, perhaps we should make offerings to Tlaloc and Xipe Totec before sowing the first crop of the year.

Really, GODDESIGNERDIDIT is not a scientific explanation, it's a lousy excuse. Atheist scientists recognize this. Theist scientists reject GODDIDIT and/or DESIGNERDIDIT because it does absolutely nothing to answer or even satisfy their burning question of HOWGODDIDIT.

Well it seems like the discussion has moved pretty far from the original topic. Perhaps I can clarify some points with an analogy.

Suppose you find a dead body with a bullet in it. From the evidence, you can reliably infer that a murder has been committed. That fact can be established beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence of the body and the bullet within, along with a detailed analysis to determine trajectory, velocity, distance, time of death, etc. In much the same way we can reliably infer that descent with modification has occurred from the evidence of the fossil record alone. This can also provide us with a timescale for events.

Now in order to determine the identity of the killer, more evidence might be required. If you found the murder weapon it might have the killer's fingerprints on it, or even his blood. Then a search of his home might turn up more evidence that might lead to an arrest. Once you had the suspect identified, you might be able to determine things such as motive and opportunity. From all of the evidence you might make a reliable inference that this was indeed the killer. If enough different types of evidence gave the same answer, you would probably be able to get a conviction in a court of law, meaning that you had identified the killer beyond a reasonable doubt. In much the same way, genetic evidence has been discovered that confirms the fossil evidence. For example, Hox genes tell the same story that is found in the fossil record and in other genetic data sets as well. In this case, it even shows us the molecular mechanisms that have been important in the process.

As for the fact that we don't yet have every detail, so what? We might never know everything. But we have enought to know that descent with modification occurred and we know many of the important processes involved. That is why creationists have switched tactics and now want to argue endlessly about the details. They know that any reasonable person familiar with the evidence must conclude that descent with modification is true. Now they are reduced to trying to claim that if we don't have all of the details they still don't have to believe it. The problem is that in order to understand all of the details you need to have a fairly good background in biology and genetics and developmental genetics and population genetics etc. So, it has become increasing difficult for people with no training in biology to argue against the evidence. In much the same way, you now need a lawyer well versed in forensics to get you out a murder conviction if the prosecution has DNA evidence.

John Brown,

Would you use GODDIDIT as a defense at a murder trial? Would you expect that defense to be effective? What do you think would happen to the lawyer who used that defense?

Science Avenger: “When we see what we predict in the fossil record, yes, sorry, we are seeing evidence for what caused it. Finds like Tiktaalik are impossible to explain otherwise.” You still don’t get it. The fossil record suggests descent with modification, but the fossil record does not confirm descent with modification due to the circularity in reasoning involved in labeling transitional forms (neo-Darwinian theory “justifies” the labeling, which in turn “justifies” the theory).

JB: The situation is like this: Critics of neo-Darwinism ask evolutionary biologists to provide at least one detailed, testable evolutionary pathway by which a complex biological system might have evolved by Darwinian means. In short, they’re asking neo-Darwinists to validate one of their positive claims.

John Brown wrote:

"If such an unambiguous lineage could ever by discovered among the fossils, and if geneticists could show the mutations that induced the progression of changes seen in that lineage, then that would constitute (in my eyes, at least) extraordinary evidence for the claims of neo-Darwinism."

As Science Avenger correctly points out, there are many example of just such things.

For example, whale evolution. There is a concordance between the palentological, genetic and developmental data sets documenting the transition from terrestrial ancestors to modern cetaceans. The mechanism involved, among other things, changes in developmental pathways that moved the position of the nostril to the top of the head. Many intermediate forms are found in the fossil record. Many different genetic data sets confirm the relationship of the cetaceans to artiodactyls and embrylogic evidence show that vestiges of the ancestral developmental pathways still remain.

The same thing is true of arthropod evolution, where there is also a concordance of the palentological, genetic and developmental data. Mitochondrial gene order confirms that crustaceans are the proper sister group to the insects, and changes in hox gene regulation provide the mechanism of change in body type.

There is a vast literature that documents these and many more examples. Why are creationist always amazed to find that biologists have discovered things since the time of Darwin? Of course you can always claim that this evidence isn't good enough to convince you, but do you have a better explanation for all of the available evidence?

If that is so, then the history of life should show the gradual transformation of organisms, where the first organism in an evolutionary lineage is barely distinguishable from the second organism, which is barely distinguishable from the third, which is barely distinguishable from the fourth, and so on and so on through thousands (if not millions) of generations, with minor adaptive changes accumulating until the “final product” has emerged from all of that unguided evolution. If such an unambiguous lineage could ever by discovered among the fossils, and if geneticists could show the mutations that induced the progression of changes seen in that lineage, then that would constitute (in my eyes, at least) extraordinary evidence for the claims of neo-Darwinism.

Stanton: "I’m trying to ask you what conclusions these fossils, as well as the genetic similarities between hippos and whales and other artiodactyls suggest if, in fact, descent with modification is false."

I haven't claimed that "descent with modification is false" (although it could be). Indeed, early in this thread I specifically said that "the facts make a fairly persuasive case for descent with modification." There are, however, very few facts that make an equally persuasive case that descent with modification was entirely caused by Darwinian mechanisms.

Stanton: "Did an unknowable and ineffable designer magically create and annihilate hundreds of generations of whales, each generation slightly more sea-worthy than the last?"

Probably not. You seem to be operating under the misconception that design theorists are committed to the proposition that every biological feature is the product of intelligent design. This misconception (along with your other erroneous statements and irrelevant questions about ID) suggests that you've never bothered to actually educate yourself on ID (I get the same impression from the comments and questions of other ID critics here). I suspect that if you've read any of the writings of ID theorists, you've read only the quotes selectively mined by the likes of PZ Myers and Ed Brayton, who seek to present ID in the worst possible light, not to present it fairly and honestly. If you actually are well-versed in design literature, then your persistent misrepresentations of ID would have to be attributed either to your failure to understand what you read or your refusal to honestly represent what you read.

Stanton: "Among other things, you, as with all other Intelligent Design proponents, use the same tired and debunked arguments used by Creationists, including the false inference that Evolutionary Biology is somehow unpopular with biologists."

I explicitly said that neo-Darwinism is widely accepted among biologists. How you can twist that to mean that I was suggesting that "Evolutionary Biology is somehow unpopular with biologists" is a mystery to me. As I've already said, it would be helpful if you'd respond to things that I actually say rather than to the things you falsely attribute to me.

Stanton: "More importantly, you have never bothered to provided an alternative explanation to descent with modification in order to explain the trends in changes we see in living and fossil taxa, let alone a superior explanation."

Descent with modification requires the creation of novel biological information. The human eye, for example, could not have come into being until the genetic (and other epigenetic) information needed to organize the correct proteins into an eye was available to the human organism. We know that intelligence can produce novel information; we don't know that unintelligent material causes can produce novel information. Absent convincing evidence to the contrary, intelligence constitutes a better explanation than unintelligent material causes for the vast amounts of biological information in living things. If descent with modification resulted from the actions of an intelligent agent (or cause), it would look very much to an observer of the fossil record like unguided evolution. What the observer would not see, however, is how an intelligent agent (or cause) inserted biological information into the process to effect descent with modification. The effects of intelligence are observable, but how intelligence acts is not necessarily observable. No one, for example, could explain how Beethoven composed his Ninth Symphony, but no one doubts that the symphony was composed by an intelligent agent. Intelligence is creative, not mechanistic. Attempts to reduce intelligence to mechanism display a profound misunderstanding of the nature of intelligence.

Stanton: "To recap what you’ve said, 'whale fossils could prove that whales descended from terrestrial animals, but they actually don’t' without ever stating why they don’t."

Groan...You make it so evident that you don't read what I write for understanding. What I've actually said is that the fossils suggest descent with modification (such as the presumed evolution of whales from terrestrial animals), but they don't prove it. Why don't the fossils prove that whales descended from terrestrial animals? Because we must first assume that whales descended from terrestrial animals before the fossils can be lined up to "corroborate" that assumption. The assumption "justifies" the lineages, which in turn "justify" the assumption. I think that evolutionary biologists have become so accustomed to reasoning in circles that they're not even aware that they're doing it.

David Stanton: "Suppose you find a dead body with a bullet in it. From the evidence, you can reliably infer that a murder has been committed."

No, you can't. The bullet might have gotten there by accident.
Or maybe the dead guy shot himself.

David Stanton: "...Hox genes tell the same story that is found in the fossil record and in other genetic data sets as well. "

I think the most interesting thing about Hox genes is that similar Hox genes can produce widely dissimilar structures, which suggests that such genes aren't actually determining much of anything.

Further, and I wish more of my scientifically minded brethren would harp on this, a complete evolutionary pathway would require more than a human lifetime to compile and/or read. Denying evolution without one would be akin to refusing to believe the pyramids are 4,000 years old unless you are given documentation of each of those moments of existence.

I don’t think I called anyone a “Darwinist” either,

Like every other Darwinist blog,

I’m not sure why someone who believes in neo-Darwinian theory would be insulted by the term

What it really boils down to is people like JohnBrown are claiming that something, call it element X, was involved in the history of life, and that X is not part of modern evolutionary theory. The obvious next question is "What does X supposedly do?", to which they have no answer (or refuse to give it).

But without such an answer, that's like claiming "God guided the hand of the surgeon" without specifying exactly what action "guided" refers to. It's a lot of words that say nothing.

The fact that they are now trying to claim Theistic evolution as their own proves this point. Theistic evolution is nothing more than rhetorical window dressing. There's no substance to it. "God guided evolution", "God used evolution as a tool", "Evolution was part of God's plan" all lack any scientific meaning without a specific understanding of what exactly God supposedly did. That's precisely why atheistic scientists and Theistic evolutionists are so able to work together.

So its really just empty chatter at this point. To Hell with all these detailed argments like JB is essentially cutting and pasting from the Creationist Canard museum. Put them on the spot as to what EXACTLY scientists should do differently. They have no answer.

Similarly, “Life evolved by way of descent with modification” is a description, not an explanation.

he inadvertently illustrated that descent with modification is just as compatible with intelligent design theory as it is with neo-Darwinism.

but if scientists assume that the supernatural neither exists nor has affected the natural world, they risk misconstruing reality.

But if science were philosophically unbiased, it would also have the third explanatory mode - design - available to it.

The only risk science would take by including design in its explantory toolkit is that design might often prove to be superfluous, thus - by Occam’s razor - effectively refuted.

JB: "The situation is like this: Critics of neo-Darwinism ask evolutionary biologists to provide at least one detailed, testable evolutionary pathway by which a complex biological system might have evolved by Darwinian means. In short, they’re asking neo-Darwinists to validate one of their positive claims."

Science Avenger: "Yes, and when they do so, as they have done for the eye, the bombiador beetle, the flagellum, etc...."

Evolutionary biologists have plenty of just-so stories about the origin of complex biological systems, but they lack detailed, testable accounts of how those systems might have come into being by Darwinian means. The just-so story told by Dawkins about the evolution of the eye deals only with the anatomical features of the eye, thus glossing over the staggeringly complicated biochemical processes involved in color vision. He speaks of "image resolution" with not a whisper of an explanation of how that complex neurological process might have arisen by Darwinian means. Dawkins also refers to organisms with eyes of varying complexity, suggesting that drawing arrows from the less complex to the more complex signifies evolutionary relationships. But connecting those eyes with arrows does nothing to explain how increasingly complex eyes actually evolved. Neo-Darwinism's explanatory deficiencies can't be papered over with hand-waving just-so stories.

Those similarities suggest, but do not “prove,” descent with modification. They provide no insight into the cause(s) of descent with modification, which is what we want to know.

If “perfectly valid” means confirmed (or proved), then neo-Darwinism is far from being “perfectly valid,” as any honest evolutionary biologist (such as Lynn Margulis) will admit. Neo-Darwinism is widely accepted among biologists (most of whom have no expertise in evolutionary biology), but widespread acceptance does not make a theory “perfectly valid.”

I think that with respect to explaining the origin of complex biological systems, or the origin of complex specified biological information, ID theory is a “superior alternative.”

I doubt that the neo-Darwinian explanation of those things will long survive our improving understanding of biological complexity (especially at the molecular level) and the nature of information (which is the very basis of life), although the theory will be propped up for some time to come by the materialistic philosophy that provides its main support.

John Brown: “If such an unambiguous lineage could ever by discovered among the fossils, and if geneticists could show the mutations that induced the progression of changes seen in that lineage, then that would constitute (in my eyes, at least) extraordinary evidence for the claims of neo-Darwinism.”

David Stanton: "As Science Avenger correctly points out, there are many example of just such things. For example, whale evolution."

Oh, come on, David. By no stretch of the imagination does the fossil record provide a detailed, unambiguous lineage from land mammals to whales (nor does it provide any other unambiguous lineages, for that matter). There are gaps in the record of millions of years. As Henry Gee (chief science writer for Nature magazine, and an evolutionist) candidly observed: "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate" and "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." Even more bluntly Gee concluded: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

If that is so, then the history of life should show the gradual transformation of organisms, where the first organism in an evolutionary lineage is barely distinguishable from the second organism, which is barely distinguishable from the third, which is barely distinguishable from the fourth, and so on and so on through thousands (if not millions) of generations, with minor adaptive changes accumulating until the “final product” has emerged from all of that unguided evolution. If such an unambiguous lineage could ever by discovered among the fossils, and if geneticists could show the mutations that induced the progression of changes seen in that lineage, then that would constitute (in my eyes, at least) extraordinary evidence for the claims of neo-Darwinism.

JB: The just-so story told by Dawkins about the evolution of the eye deals only with the anatomical features of the eye, thus glossing over the staggeringly complicated biochemical processes involved in color vision.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

You still don’t get it. The fossil record suggests descent with modification, but the fossil record does not confirm descent with modification due to the circularity in reasoning involved in labeling transitional forms (neo-Darwinian theory “justifies” the labeling, which in turn “justifies” the theory).

The methods of science may produce inferences

When science is committed to materialism, it has only two explanatory modes available to it: chance and necessity.

We know that intelligence can produce novel information; we don’t know that unintelligent material causes can produce novel information.

Absent convincing evidence to the contrary, intelligence constitutes a better explanation than unintelligent material causes for the vast amounts of biological information in living things.

Even more bluntly Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

Oh, come on, David. By no stretch of the imagination does the fossil record provide a detailed, unambiguous lineage from land mammals to whales (nor does it provide any other unambiguous lineages, for that matter). There are gaps in the record of millions of years. As Henry Gee (chief science writer for Nature magazine, and an evolutionist) candidly observed: “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate” and “the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” Even more bluntly Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

John Brown,

You obviously don't understand Hox genes, or the fossil record. I am not going to argue with you over details, especially when you demonstrate such a complete lack of understanding of the basics. A great deal is known about Hox gene evolution and how it has affected the evolution of arthropods. Go to the Talk Origins archive to find references. If you refuse to accept the opinion of those who are experts in the field, then once again, I must ask for your explanation of the evidence.

As for the whales, there is much more than just fossil evidence as I already pointed out. How do you explain the genetic data? How do you explain the embryology? How do you explain the fossils that do exist? How many dead bodies do you require in order to conclude that a murder has occurred?

Demanding endless detail and a complete fossil record will not work. You must explain the data that already exists, not merely demand more data no matter how much exists. If you don't choose to believe that evolution occurred and continues to occur, no one cares. Reality doesn't care what you think.

John Brown the liar quote mining: Even more bluntly Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

NCSE.org: pr90 10/15/2001 - Gee Responds to Discovery Institute Use of Quotations The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series “…leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is.” The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments: The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME to support their outdated, mistaken views. Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is made clear several times e.g. on p5 (paperback edition) I write that "if it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin..." and then go on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book. For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is mischievous. That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific. I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals. The above views are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my colleagues at NATURE or any opinion or policy of the NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. Henry Gee

JB: "The just-so story told by Dawkins about the evolution of the eye deals only with the anatomical features of the eye, thus glossing over the staggeringly complicated biochemical processes involved in color vision."

Science Avenger: "And that, ladles and germs, is what we call moving the goalposts."

What goalposts have I moved? I've always insisted that evolutionary biologists need to flesh out their presumed evolutionary pathways with some actual details if they want to be persuasive to all, not just persuasive to those who are willing to accept even the flimsiest of evidence as "confirmation" of neo-Darwinism. Biologist Lynn Margulis (who describes herself as a "Darwinist") aptly described the evidentiary solidity of neo-Darwinism in this way: "Like a sugary snack that temporarily satisfies our appetite but deprives us of more nutritious foods, neo-Darwinism sates intellectual curiosity with abstractions bereft of actual details - whether metabolic, biochemical, or of natural history." Or as cell biologist Franklin Harold put it: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

David Stanton: "A great deal is known about Hox gene evolution and how it has affected the evolution of arthropods."

You're bluffing, David. A great deal may be surmised about Hox gene evolution, but precious little is *known* about it. Indeed, so far as we know, mutations in homeotic genes are always harmful, which presents a serious problem to the neo-Darwinian notion that complex gene clusters evolve as random mutations confer selective advantages on organisms. A Darwinian account of homeotic genes must show that the presumed common ancestor possessed the adaptations associated with those genes. If the common ancestor had the genes, but lacked the adaptations, then the genes originated prior to the adaptations. But how can that be when natural selection acts only on useful adaptations? Natural selection would not favor gene clusters that coded for no useful adaptations. As I understand it, neo-Darwinists sidestep this problem by maintaining that homeotic genes evolved by encoding primitive adaptations yet to be discovered, which is another fine piece of ad hoc speculation (much like Gould's "solution" - punctuated equilibrium - to the failure of the fossil record to reflect the gradualism expected by neo-Darwinism).

My thanks to all the contributors who characterize things I say as "lies." I don't have the time to respond to everyone here, and I find it easy to ignore those who presume to call the things I say "lies" simply because they disagree with me. The field of contributors who interest me is dwindling. You may be the last man standing, David.

John Brown,

I don't know where you are getting you information about hox genes, but you are sadly misinformed. We know a great deal about how hox genes regulate development. In essence they are master switch genes that control segmentation, segment identity and placement of body parts. We have sequenced the hox genes from many different species. We know when hox gene duplications occurred and we know some of the mutations that gave rise to the different body types in arthropods and other groups. This a very active area of researach and exciting discoveries are being made every day. If you want more details, you can start out with these references:

American Scientist 85(2):1-10 (1997)
Nature 376:420-423 (1995)
Nature 388:682-686 (1997)
Nature 415:914-917 (2002)
Current Bio. 12:R291-R293 (2002)

For example, in arthropod evolution, one of the important differences between crustaceans and insects involves the evolution of a QA repression domain that causes the loss of serine/threonine phosphorylation sites. This leads to an important difference in hox gene expression which is responsible for some of the important anatomical differences between crustaceans and insects. (See the last reference for details). So, contrary to your assertation that mutations in hox genes are "always harmful", obviously some are not only beneficial but have been very important in evolution.

If you want to learn about hox genes, don't go to creationist web sites, go to the primary literature. I'm sure that PZ also has some good information on hox genes on his web site. Don't take the opinions of people who know nothing about the field of evo devo, ask the experts. If you don't want to believe what the experts have to say, nobody cares. You can't convince anybody who is aware of the literature by displaying your ignorance of the literature.

David Stanton: "We know a great deal about how hox genes regulate development."

No doubt we do, but you said that we know a great deal about the evolution of hox genes, which is a different matter altogether.

By the way, I spend zero time visiting creationist websites, although I do frequent some of the ID websites. I also don't place any trust at all in the mutterings of PZ Myers. The man shows himself to be such an insufferable ass that he utterly undercuts his ability to persuade those who don't already worship in his choir. His blog does an even greater disservice to the cause of evolutionary biology than this blog. Neo-Darwinist blogs can try to be persuasive to skeptics, or they can be insulting of skeptics. When they choose the latter, they foreclose the former. I think Darwin, who was a champion of science as argument, would be appalled by the adolescent rhetorical tactics of his modern disciples.

John Brown,

In what way does my example not represent an understanding of the evolution of hox genes and their importance in the evolution of arthropods? Seriously, there is a large and growing literature about exactly how hox gene mutations have affected evolution. Read the papers I recommended. If you want to discuss the finer points presented in the papers, we might have something to talk about. But simply repeating that no one will ever have enough details to convince you is not a productive approach.

And by the way, if you concede that we do understand how hox genes regulate development, how can you possibly claim that mutations in hox genes would not be important in evolution? And if you are not familiar with the literature, how can you possibly know how much is known about hox gene evolution or it's importance? Assuming that evidence does not exist because you are ignorant of it is not a productive strategy.

We have found the smoking gun, it has both fingerprints and DNA on it. Trying to claim that it isn't your DNA isn't going to convince anyone familiar with forensics. You are going to have to explain why all of the evidence points directly at you and why it all gives exactly the same answer.

I do frequent some of the ID websites.

Neo-Darwinist blogs can try to be persuasive to skeptics, or they can be insulting of skeptics. When they choose the latter, they foreclose the former. I think Darwin, who was a champion of science as argument, would be appalled by the adolescent rhetorical tactics of his modern disciples.

What goalposts have I moved?

reminds me most of “The Wagnerian Inquisition: - EVERYBODY expects the Wagnerian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is repetition… repetition and dullness… dullness and repetition… Our two weapons are dullness and repetition… and ruthless inefficiency… Our three weapons are dullness and repetition and ruthless inefficiency… and an almost fanatical devotion to the Cause… Our four… no… Amongst our arguments… Amongst our argumentation… are such elements as dullness, repetition… - I’ll come in again. (Exit)”

My thanks to all the contributors who characterize things I say as “lies.” I don’t have the time to respond to everyone here, and I find it easy to ignore those who presume to call the things I say “lies” simply because they disagree with me. The field of contributors who interest me is dwindling. You may be the last man standing, David.

Thanks Mike.

Of course you're right. The refusal to read any references provided is a sure give-away that you are not dealing with someone who is at all interested in the real science. Seems like a common feature of several posters here. I like to give the benefit of the doubt, but I usually regret it in the end.

author = "David Stanton"> I like to give the benefit of the doubt, but I usually regret it in the end.

Odds and Ends....

Science Avenger: "Very few of us who accept evolution have a commitment to a material explanation of life."

In that case, why are the lot of you so viscerally opposed to considering the possiblity that the design that's so evident in living things is actual rather than apparent? Regardless of how well established you think neo-Darwinism's material explanation of life's evolution is, the fact remains that such a material explanation could be substantially wrong. It's
simply not possible for science to conclusively prove that life's origin and development can be entirely attributed to material causes. The possibility that a nonmaterial intelligence (which is not necessarily a supernatural intelligence) played a role (perhaps the key role) in life's
origin and development can't be ruled out on a priori grounds.

When science approaches origins-of-life questions, it does so out of ignorance. If this weren't so, there would be no need to do any research to try to answer those questions. Because of its a priori ignorance with regard to origins-of-life questions, science is in no position to rule out any logical possibilities before those possibilities have even been considered. Thus the question "Is the design that we see in
living things actual rather than apparent?" is a perfectly legitimate scientific question. If you insist that science must not consider that question, then you are, indeed, committed to a material explanation of life.

By the way, I accept evolution, too. But since that slippery word has so many meanings, you'll be hard-pressed to know what I mean, just as I'm hard-pressed to know what you mean when you say that you accept evolution.

Also, when I refer to "origins-of-life questions," I'm including questions relating to life's evolution.

Henry: "What the heck is circular about noting that a species has some of the features of an earlier species, some of those of a later species, and shares the features that are shared by both the earlier and the later species?"

You can't impute ancestor/descendant relationships to those species unless you presuppose that they represent an evolutionary lineage. Morphological similarities don't establish that species are in ancestor/descendant
relationships. The labeling of ancestors and descendants depends on the presupposition that the species being so labeled represent an evolutionary sequence. The presupposition "justifies" the labeling, which in turn
"justifies" the presupposition. The circularity in reasoning is palpable. Whenever the assumptions (or needs, or predictions) of a theory inform interpretations of the evidence, the reasoning becomes circular when the
interpretations are then used to "confirm" the theory. This is a real problem for a historical science like evolutionary biology, but the problem is not solved by simply giving in to circular reasoning. Morphological similarities, even if coupled with chronological sequencing, cannot establish evolutionary relationships; they can only suggest them.

Torbjörn: "We know that simple deterministic chaotic systems produce massive amounts of information..."

No doubt true, but such deterministic, chaotic systems do not produce meaningful information, that is to say, information that bears a message. You could put a deterministic, chaotic system to work to try to generate the sequence of letters in this sentence - a sequence that bears meaningful information, not mere Shannon information - and that system would, in all
likelihood, never succeed (unless, like Dawkins's "methinksitislikeaweasel" analogy to evolution, you choose a selection function that will inevitably produce the target sequence). The only information that is relevant to life is biologically meaningful information.

David Stanton: "In what way does my example not represent an understanding of the evolution of hox genes and their importance in the evolution of arthropods? Seriously, there is a large and growing literature about exactly how hox gene mutations have affected evolution."

Aside from the fact that evolutionary biology cannot produce exact explanations of historical biological events, I'm willing to accept what you say. But the question at hand is the evolution of hox genes themselves, not their role in the evolution of organisms.

JB: "What goalposts have I moved?"

Torbjörn: "Like the one where you pretend to not notice that your claim on Gee is pulverized?"

My claim was that Gee candidly admitted that lining up fossils and then claiming that they represent a lineage is not a testable scientific hypothesis. For example, Gee characterized the conventional picture of human evolution as "a complete human invention created after the fact,
shaped to accord with human prejudices." By saying that he was admitting that the construction of lineages from the fossils is determined by the assumptions of neo-Darwinism. When paleontologists line up fossils in lineages, there is every possibility that they are creating their own reality in accordance with the needs of neo-Darwinism. Whether those
"lineages" represent unvarnished reality is an open question.

The claim that was "pulverized" was the claim that Gee dissents from neo-Darwinism, but that's not a claim that I made. Indeed, I explicitly described Gee as an "evolutionist." The thing I admire about Gee is his
candor with respect to the tendentious interpretations of the fossil record that are so pervasive among evolutionary biologists.

Finally, an observation with respect to all the accusations that I've been "lying"....

At about the age of 3, most children learn that when they deliberately tell a falsehood, they're lying. They also learn that when they unknowingly tell a falsehood, they're not lying; they're simply wrong. Also at an early age they learn that sometimes when they think they're right, it turns out that they're wrong; and that sometimes when they think others are wrong, it turns out that the others are right. These elementary lessons seem to be beyond the understanding of some of the geniuses who post here.

John Brown wrote:

"Aside from the fact that evolutionary biology cannot produce exact explanations of historical biological events, I’m willing to accept what you say. But the question at hand is the evolution of hox genes themselves, not their role in the evolution of organisms."

Still haven't read those papers I see. Every one of them detailed exactly how hox genes have evolved AND how they have affected evolution. We know the lineages that hox gene duplications arose in. We know the mechanisms and the timing of the duplication events. We know the mutations that altered their temporal and spatial expression patterns. We know how those mutations affected development and morphology. We know how those changes were selected on over time. Exactly what is it that you think we do not know, and exacatly how would you know what is or is not known if you refuse to read a single paper?

And by the way, this is just another example of you moving the goalposts. You have gone from claiming that hox genes don't affect development, to claiming that hox gene mutations are always deleterious, to claiming that we really don't know anything about hox gene evolution. You were wrong the first time and the second and the third. Care to try again? I know it takes a lot of energy to move goalposts, but it gets easier with practice. It would be a lot easier to just read the papers.

Why do you demand "exact explanations of historical biological events" but are completely willing to accept tha argument that supernatural explanations cannot be conclusively ruled out even though there is absolutely NO evidence for that whatsoever? And your assumption of seeing design in nature is simply a subjective judgement that most real biologists disagree with. You are of course free to your opinion, but it certainly won't convince anyone familiar with the evidence.

Now are you going to look at the evidence you demanded or not? You claim that nothing is known about this or that, but not only are you completely ignorant of the evidence, you even refuse to look at it when it is shoved in your face. Why is that? Are you afraid of finding out that you are completely wrong? Are you afraid of what science has learned in the last 150 years? Don't worry, you can still claim that it isn't good enough for you no matter what, or you can just move the goalposts again.

“I certainly haven’t had time to look through these 50 articles, but I still am unaware of any that address
my point that the immune system could arise or that present in a detailed rigorous fashion a scenario for the evolution by random mutation and natural selection of
the immune system.”

Michael Behe (Dover Trial, 2005)

Sound familiar?

David Stanton: "Still haven’t read those papers I see."

To absolve yourself of any hypocrisy here, please identify all the papers and books written by design theorists that you've read.

David: "Exactly what is it that you think we do not know, and exacatly how would you know what is or is not known if you refuse to read a single paper?"

Easy. With respect to presumed biological events that occurred in the distant past, the scientific method can deliver inferences; it can't deliver certain knowledge. Each time you use the word "know" to describe a past biological event, you should instead be using the word "infer."

David: "...your assumption of seeing design in nature is simply a subjective judgement that most real biologists disagree with."

"Biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved." - Sir Francis Crick

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." - Richard Dawkins

Evidently you don't think that Crick and Dawkins are "real biologists."

John Brown,

Please reread my post. Please note the word "most". Evidently you think that two represents most biologists. And no, someone who is dead is no longer a real biologist.

As far as what books I have read, why difference does it make? You claimed that there are things that science has not yet discovered. You demanded to be given every detail. When I pointed out that science has indeed discovered these things, you then demanded that I read ID literature that most likely claims that science has not discovered these things! You demanded references, I gave them to you, you refused to read them. I did not ask for anything from you. You have no right or cause to demand that I read anything. You are just trying to move the goalposts again, this time to another stadium. Why is that? If you don't want to read the papers fine, but who do you think that will convince and what do you think it will convince them of?

You are right about one thing, science cannot deliver "certain knowledge". If that is what you are after, go to church. Those who are actually familiar with the evidence can make sound inferences from the evidence. They can test hyposthses and reject hypothses that don't have any explanatory or predictive power. Those who are unfamiliar with the evidence cannot do this, nor should they presume to criticize those who do. The Behe approach will not work. You do remember what the outcome of the trial was don't you?

Now, to absolve yourself of any hypocrisy, please give every detail of what God did, when and why. Please explain why these interventions were necessary. Please explain why there is no evidence that any of these interventions actually occurred. If your goal is "certain knowledge" it should be easy to provide these details. If you cannot, then you might want to stop demanding them from others.

And just to be clear, the biologists you quoted did NOT conclude that living things were designed. They said that there is the "appearance" of design. They showed that there was the illusion of design. They cautioned that those who were unfamiliar with the evidence might come to the erroneous conclusion that there was design.

Now we can agree that the earth appears to be flat. But hopefully we can also agree that that position is not defensible if one is familiar with the evidence. Hopefully we can agree that that is an illusion. Hopefully we can agree that that hypothesis can be conclusively falsified. Hopefully we can agree that an infinite level of detail is not required in order to reject that hypothesis. Hopefully we can agree that one need not measaure the exact deformation in the shape of the earth from perfect circularity in order to conclude that the earth is not flat.

Why do you demand “exact explanations of historical biological events” but are completely willing to accept the argument that supernatural explanations cannot be conclusively ruled out even though there is absolutely NO evidence for that whatsoever?

Mind you: the following suggestion is nothing more, nor less, than (divine?) inspiration.

It seems to my feebly developed mind that the mouldering persona of "JohnBrown" might be a zombie for a lusKin Case.Yf that should indeed happen to be the case, by some (divine?) coincidence, it might explain not only his glib vocularity and sophistry but also his ease around the arguments from ID and his barely nodding acquaintance with biology. Such a person might even have delved into such discussions as a full-time job; if not actually having acted as paid co'n-author of such slick mendacity.

The other Salimy Crockodile who comes to mind appears to lack the current level of sololiquy and perversion of logic on show in this thread. That circumstance might also point in the direction of the California Bar Association, for (a designedly random) example. (IANAL)

So, what are the odds? :)

Science Avenger: “Very few of us who accept evolution have a commitment to a material explanation of life.” JohnBrown: In that case, why are the lot of you so viscerally opposed to considering the possiblity that the design that’s so evident in living things is actual rather than apparent?

Science Avenger:

Science Avenger: “Very few of us who accept evolution have a commitment to a material explanation of life.” JohnBrown: In that case, why are the lot of you so viscerally opposed to considering the possiblity that the design that’s so evident in living things is actual rather than apparent?

We aren't. We've considered it and rejected it on its merits. Irreducible complexity has been falsified. The explanatory filter explains nothing. The design isn't apparent when one looks closely, because it is (the eye, the Panda's thumb, etc.) something no intelligence would conceive of, whereas it is exactly the kind of bass-ackwards, inefficient, downright moronic "design" one would expect from mindless step-by-step processes.

To absolve yourself of any hypocrisy here, please identify all the papers and books written by design theorists that you’ve read.

Richard Simons:

To absolve yourself of any hypocrisy here, please identify all the papers and books written by design theorists that you’ve read.

There is no 'design theory', therefore no 'design theorists'.

I left off "Complex Specified Information", another craptastic piece of sciency truthiness from the ID crowd that keeps pretending it's been defined and quantified. Its got as much scientific content as the Heisenberg Compensators.

when they unknowingly tell a falsehood, they’re not lying; they’re simply wrong.

reminds me most of “The Wagnerian Inquisition: - EVERYBODY expects the Wagnerian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is repetition… repetition and dullness… dullness and repetition… Our two weapons are dullness and repetition… and ruthless inefficiency… Our three weapons are dullness and repetition and ruthless inefficiency… and an almost fanatical devotion to the Cause… Our four… no… Amongst our arguments… Amongst our argumentation… are such elements as dullness, repetition… - I’ll come in again. (Exit)”

…it might explain not only his glib vocularity and sophistry but also his ease around the arguments from ID and his barely nodding acquaintance with biology.

You can’t impute ancestor/descendant relationships to those species unless you presuppose that they represent an evolutionary lineage. Morphological similarities don’t establish that species are in ancestor/descendant relationships.

But since that slippery word [evolution] has so many meanings,

Michael Behe (at the Dover trial): "I certainly haven’t had time to look through these 50 articles, but I still am unaware of any that address my point that the immune system could arise or that present in a detailed rigorous fashion a scenario for the evolution by random mutation and natural selection of the immune system."

David Stanton: "Sound familiar?"

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697

From Judge Jones's written opinion: "In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'"

Behe replies...

"Several points:

1) Although the opinion's phrasing makes it seem to come from my mouth, the remark about the studies being 'not good enough' was the cross-examining attorney's, not mine.

2) I was given no chance to read them, and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater. Yet the Court treats it seriously.

3) The Court here speaks of 'evidence for evolution'. Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word 'evolution', and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin's proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism. I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection - if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in more recent studies that I had had a chance to read (see below).

4) This is the most blatant example of the Court's simply accepting the Plaintiffs' say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the opinions of the defendants' experts. I strongly suspect the Court did not itself read the 'fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system' and determine from its own expertise that they demonstrated Darwinian claims. How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the defense expert disputes it and the Court has not itself read and understood them? In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn't even contain the phrase 'random mutation'; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true - they did not even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative, in other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for the immune system. The Court does not mention this testimony."

James Shapiro (molecular biologist, University of Chicago): "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject - evolution - with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

Henry J: One can't be certain that any particular speciman is actually a close relative of the direct ancestor of something else. But when a huge number of different species show the pattern of being only slightly different from some earlier species which was only a bit different from a still earlier species, etc., it is logical to infer that the earlier ones are close relatives of the direct ancestral species.

David Stanton: "...someone who is dead is no longer a real biologist."

Someone who is dead also doesn't speak. When Crick cautioned biologists to constantly remind themselves that the appearance of design in living things is an illusion, he was quite alive, but - by your lights - he couldn't have been a real biologist for saying such a thing. His cautionary advice to his fellow biologists is akin to telling visitors to your home to pay no attention to the elephant in the living room. Given their a priori commitment to materialism, evolutionary biologists have taken Crick's advice and studiously ignored the elephant.

David: "You claimed that there are things that science has not yet discovered."

Right. Among the things yet to be discovered is a single detailed, testable Darwinian pathway to even one complex biological system.

David: "When I pointed out that science has indeed discovered these things..."

All you were doing was bluffing. Nonetheless, I'll be glad to read one of your recommended papers if you'll give me a URL for it. But since I don't have the tolerance for just-so stories that Darwinian true-believers have, I don't anticipate finding the paper persuasive.

David: "You do remember what the outcome of the trial was don't you?"

Right. The most compelling thing to me about the trial's outcome was that Judge Jones - an intelligent man - was willfully obtuse in reaching his decision that ID theory is not science. There's no other way to account for his inability to distinguish the propositional contents and methodologies of ID theory from the theory's theistic implications. If the judge were asked to decide the scientific legitimacy of Big Bang theory, consistency in reasoning would require him to declare that Big Bang theory is not scientific. After all, Big Bang theory - just like ID theory - has some rather obvious theistic implications. Nonetheless, because both theories draw their inferences entirely from observable empirical data, not from any religious precepts, it would be (and is) quite ridiculous to describe either theory as religion simply because it has theistic implications. If ID theory is theism simply because it has theistic implications, then by the same token, neo-Darwinism is atheism simply because it has atheistic implications - implications that Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the like put to use in pooh-poohing the existence of God.

David: "Now, to absolve yourself of any hypocrisy, please give every detail of what God did, when and why."

ID theory has nothing to say about God. With regard to any system, three questions can be asked:

1) Was this system designed?

2) How was the design actualized?

3) Who was the designer?

As ID theory is currently construed, the only question that design theorists are addressing is the first question. Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense to ask the other two questions until the first question has been confidently answered in the affirmative. This is something that anyone who is versed in ID literature would know. But since critics keep harping on questions 2 and 3, they make it abundantly clear that they've never bothered to inform themselves on ID theory. Nonetheless, their self-imposed ignorance gives them no pause in ridiculing the whole ID project.

David: "And just to be clear, the biologists you quoted did NOT conclude that living things were designed. They said that there is the 'appearance' of design."

That's the same thing I said. One cannot avoid the appearance of design when observing the technological "machines" of life. That's the elephant in the living room. Ignoring the elephant doesn't entail that the elephant isn't real.

David: "They cautioned that those who were unfamiliar with the evidence might come to the erroneous conclusion that there was design."

Give me a break. The case is not closed on what brought life to its present state of diversity and complexity, notwithstanding all the bluster spewing from Darwinian true-believers.

Behe replies… “Several points:

Someone who is dead also doesn’t speak. Blah, blah, blah…

JB wrote:

"As ID theory is currently construed, the only question that design theorists are addressing is the first question. Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense to ask the other two questions until the first question has been confidently answered in the affirmative. This is something that anyone who is versed in ID literature would know. But since critics keep harping on questions 2 and 3, they make it abundantly clear that they’ve never bothered to inform themselves on ID theory. Nonetheless, their self-imposed ignorance gives them no pause in ridiculing the whole ID project."

Great. So you admit that no one can even demonstrate if anything was designed, let alone who did it, why or when. Then you demand a detailed molecule by molecule account from evolutionary biology and refuse to believe anything that doesn't meet you stringent and arbitrary criteria. Fine, you stick with that. Let me know how it works out for you.

As others have pointed out, there is no elephant, so it has not been ignored. Scientists have examined the evidence and reached the conclusion that the appearance of design is an illusion. You disagree, fine. Get to work on providing some evidence for number one. Then you can move on to number two and three. When you have that done you can publish your results and give us the references. Of course there is no guarantee that anyone will bother to read them. And even if they do, I'm sure there will not be enough detail to convince anyone. Oh well. Given your prior committment to supernaturalism it wouldn't be at all surprising.

JohnBrown: Right. The most compelling thing to me about the trial's outcome was that Judge Jones - an intelligent man - was willfully obtuse in reaching his decision that ID theory is not science. There's no other way to account for his inability to distinguish the propositional contents and methodologies of ID theory from the theory's theistic implications. If the judge were asked to decide the scientific legitimacy of Big Bang theory, consistency in reasoning would require him to declare that Big Bang theory is not scientific.

Behe: and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection.

There’s no other way to account for his inability to distinguish the propositional contents and methodologies of ID theory from the theory’s theistic implications.

ID theory has nothing to say about God. With regard to any system, three questions can be asked: 1) Was this system designed? 2) How was the design actualized? 3) Who was the designer? As ID theory is currently construed, the only question that design theorists are addressing is the first question. Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense to ask the other two questions until the first question has been confidently answered in the affirmative.

“Now, to absolve yourself of any hypocrisy, please give every detail of what God did, when and why.”

At about the age of 3, most children learn that when they deliberately tell a falsehood, they’re lying. They also learn that when they unknowingly tell a falsehood, they’re not lying; they’re simply wrong. Also at an early age they learn that sometimes when they think they’re right, it turns out that they’re wrong; and that sometimes when they think others are wrong, it turns out that the others are right.

Henry: "... when a huge number of different species show the pattern of being only slightly different from some earlier species which was only a bit different from a still earlier species, etc., it is logical to infer that the earlier ones are close relatives of the direct ancestral species."

Such an inference might be warranted if long sequences of "slightly different" species were ever found in the fossil record. But sequences of that kind are conspicuous by their absence. The fossil record is characterized by discontinuity, not continuity, and the discontinuities are often measured in the millions of years.

Henry: "Did Behe really say that Darwin knew about genetics? Did he really refer to Darwin’s proposal of 'random mutation'?"

Having read Behe's works, I know that he is quite aware that Darwin had no idea how biological variations arise in populations. The mechanism of random mutations was added to Darwin's theory when neo-Darwinism, or the modern synthesis (between Darwin's theory and Mendelian genetics), was developed some seven decades ago. Behe probably should have been more cautious in his choice of words, given the tendency of ID foes to pounce on every ambiguous phrase as a sign of great ignorance on the part of ID theorists.

JB: "ID theory has nothing to say about God. With regard to any system, three questions can be asked:

1) Was this system designed?

2) How was the design actualized?

3) Who was the designer?

As ID theory is currently construed, the only question that design theorists are addressing is the first question. Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense to ask the other two questions until the first question has been confidently answered in the affirmative."

Henry: "That makes absolutely no sense. The only way to even begin to establish (1) would be by obtaining some information about (2) and (3)."

Actually, Henry, it's never necessary to know a thing about (2) and (3) to detect design. Indeed, why would you even try to answer (2) and (3) unless you knew that the object in question had been designed? Those questions are senseless when applied to objects that weren't designed. Maybe an imaginary scenario will help you see that nothing needs to be known about (2) and (3) to confidently arrive at a design inference....

Imagine that you're the first man on Mars. During your exploration of the red planet, you come across a mysterious formation of rocks. Much to your amazement, the rocks are arranged as giant letters that spell out "Welcome to Mars, fourth rock from the Sun. We hope you enjoy your stay." You instantly - and quite correctly - infer that the rock formation was designed, even though you don't know how the rocks came to be arranged in that way or who the designer might have been. The rock formation itself signals design because it exhibits the hallmark of design, namely, specified complexity.

Henry: "To figure out if something was deliberately engineered one looks for signs of that engineering, or signs of somebody/something capable of the job, or something/somebody with motive."

One does indeed look for "signs of engineering," otherwise known as "signs of design." ID theorists argue (persuasively, in my view) that specified complexity is the most reliable sign of design, so if an object (or a system, or an event) exhibits specified complexity, a design inference is warranted. A design inference does not depend on knowledge of the designer, his motives, or his methods of actualizing his design.

Many scientific research possibilities will open up if design theorists succeed in convincing the scientific mainstream that the apparent design in many biological systems is actual (or intelligent) design. I expect that trying to determine how those designs were actualized would occupy the energies of generations of scientists, but research on that scale can't happen unless design wins sufficient scientific consensus to marshal the institutional and financial support that all scientific research needs.

With regard to the identity of the designer, ID theorists argue (correctly, in my view) that such a question lies beyond the reach of science - that the question should be referred to philosophers and theologians. Biological data can support design inferences, but the data provide no inferential trails leading to the identity of the designer. Critics who reduce design theory to "Goddidit" simply demonstrate that they don't have a clue as to what design theory is all about. Theology can support "Goddidit," but ID theory can't.

David Stanton: "So you admit that no one can even demonstrate if anything was designed, let alone who did it, why or when."

Apparently you failed to read what I wrote for understanding. Read it again.

David: "As others have pointed out, there is no elephant, so it has not been ignored."

This is called "willful blindness." The appearance of design in biological systems is overwhelming, which raises the obvious question: "Is this apparent design real rather than merely apparent?" What "others have pointed out" is utter baloney.

David: "Scientists have examined the evidence and reached the conclusion that the appearance of design is an illusion."

How could they conclude that the appearance of design is an illusion unless they first recognize the appearance of design - something you say that few do? In any event, there is a growing number of scientists who are concluding that the design that's so apparent in biological systems is real, not merely apparent. Those scientists remain a tiny minority, but since the origin of complex biological systems is still an open question, and since the validity of scientific theories is not decided by majority rule, the only reason to shut down design research is a dogmatic refusal on the part of the scientific mainstream to consider design.

David: "Given your prior committment to supernaturalism it wouldn’t be at all surprising."

My prior commitment is to scientific inquiry being free from a priori philosophical commitments. When science operates without philosophical bias (as it should), it can follow the evidence wherever it leads - even if it leads to design.

stevaroni: "Please give some detail, any detail - that we can actually check - that shows that some God did something."

You need to direct this question to theologians. ID theorists aren't in the busines of showing that "some God did something." All the God talk surrounding ID theory comes from its theistic implications, not from the theory itself. When an ID theorist expresses his personal opinion that the designer implicated by design theory is God, he's basing his opinion on his theology, not on his science.

stevaroni: "Please give some detail, any detail - that we can actually check - that shows that some God did something."

You need to direct this question to theologians. ID theorists aren't in the busines of showing that "some God did something." All the God talk surrounding ID theory comes from its theistic implications, not from the theory itself. When an ID theorist expresses his personal opinion that the designer implicated by design theory is God, he's basing his opinion on his theology, not on his science.

JB wrote:

"My prior commitment is to scientific inquiry being free from a priori philosophical commitments. When science operates without philosophical bias (as it should), it can follow the evidence wherever it leads - even if it leads to design."

Fine. Start following. When you have some evidence, maybe we can talk. Until then, the burden of proof is on you. After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of promissory immaterialism now would you. Really JB, your double standard is becoming quite tiresome.

Now, if you really want to learn about hox genes, I suggest starting with a good molecular biology textbook. Then read the review article in Nature that I suggested. You do subscribe to Nature and Science don't you? If not, you can access them from any good library data base. Or, you could just google "hox gene evolution" and see how many hits you get. I would recommend sticking to scientific journals. When you are done with that you can read the following journals:

Jounal of Molecular Evolution
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics

They always have interesting articles about hox genes and many other topics. Then you can start in on the evo/devo journals.

You do want to follow the evidence whereever it leads don't you?

David Stanton: "When you have some evidence, maybe we can talk."

I'm not a design theorist; I'm simply someone who finds the argument for design persuasive. But if you'd like to see some of the evidence for design in the biosphere, allow me to suggest the obvious: read some of the works of design theorists.

David Stanton: "Now, if you really want to learn about hox genes, I suggest starting with a good molecular biology textbook....Or, you could just google 'hox gene evolution' and see how many hits you get."

I took your advice and googled "hox gene evolution." I was led to a paper with the title "Evolution of Hox Genes," by FH Ruddle, ­JL Bartels, KL Bentley, C Kappen, ­MT Murtha, and ­JW Pendleton.­

The opening paragraph of the paper reads:

"The homeobox gene family plays a fundamental role in the developmental control of metazoan organisms. In this article, we review the distribution of this gene family in selected species of the major phyla of metazoans, and from these data evaluate the usefulness of this system for establishing phyletic affinities, and the potential of using developmental genes as a means of obtaining insights into evolutionary mechanisms."

In short, although the paper is titled "Evolution of Hox Genes," it doesn't actually explain the evolution of hox geness. It simply assumes evolution by Darwinian means (and the "phyletic affinities" such evolution would produce) and then attempts to fit hox genes into that assumption. If you have access to a paper that actually attempts to explain the evolution of hox genes by Darwinian means, let's see it.

JB,

Keep looking. You've got a lot to read.

Such an inference might be warranted if long sequences of “slightly different” species were ever found in the fossil record. But sequences of that kind are conspicuous by their absence.

Actually, Henry, it’s never necessary to know a thing about (2) and (3) to detect design. Indeed, why would you even try to answer (2) and (3) unless you knew that the object in question had been designed? Those questions are senseless when applied to objects that weren’t designed.

Much to your amazement, the rocks are arranged as giant letters that spell out “Welcome to Mars, fourth rock from the Sun. We hope you enjoy your stay.” You instantly - and quite correctly - infer that the rock formation was designed, even though you don’t know how the rocks came to be arranged in that way or who the designer might have been.

A design inference does not depend on knowledge of the designer, his motives, or his methods of actualizing his design.

In short, although the paper is titled “Evolution of Hox Genes,” it doesn’t actually explain the evolution of hox geness. It simply assumes evolution by Darwinian means (and the “phyletic affinities” such evolution would produce) and then attempts to fit hox genes into that assumption.

JB: "Actually, Henry, it’s never necessary to know a thing about (2) and (3) to detect design. Indeed, why would you even try to answer (2) and (3) unless you knew that the object in question had been designed? Those questions are senseless when applied to objects that weren’t designed."

Henry: "That is exactly WHY questions 2 and 3 have to be asked - to figure out whether or not the object in question was deliberately engineered. Without those details a claim of 'design' cannot be supported."

Nonsense. A design inference never depends on knowledge of the designer or knowledge of how the design might have been actualized. If the Mars scenario didn't make that clear to you, perhaps this will...

In his novel "Contact," the late Carl Sagan wrote of SETI researchers who intercepted a radio signal from outer space. The signal consisted of 1,126 beats and pauses. Expressed in digital form, the beats corresponded to 1s and the pauses corresponded to 0s. To their amazement, the researchers discovered that the sequence of 1s and 0s represented the prime numbers (in sequence) from 2 to 101. Here was a signal that was not only complex, but specified (i.e., corresponding to independently given specifications). They rightly concluded that the signal was designed, although they had no prior knowledge of the designer's identity (i.e., they had no answer to question 3) or of how the designer broadcast his signal (i.e., they had no answer to question 2). Analysis of the signal itself, not answers to questions (2) and (3), is what led Sagan's SETI researchers to the conclusion that the signal was designed (and to the further conclusion that ET existed - design, after all, implicates a designer).

Interestingly, Sagan was willing to accept the relatively small specified complexity of the radio signal as a reliable indicator of design, but whenever he considered the relatively large specified complexity exhibited by many biological systems, his response was, "Nope. No design there."
He never explained why a little bit of specified complexity warrants a design inference, while a lot of specified complexity doesn't.

Henry: "Yes, scientists do act as if already firmly established theories are already firmly established."

The history of science is chock full of "firmly established theories" that ended up in the dustbin of discarded scientific theories. For example, the 1960 edition of Clark and Stearn's "Geological Evolution of North America" treated the geosynclinal theory of mountain formation as firmly established, even comparing the theory favorably with evolutionary theory:

"The geosynclinal theory is one of the great unifying principles in geology. In many ways its role in geology is similar to that of the theory of evolution, which serves to integrate the many branches of the biological sciences...Just as the doctrine of evolution is universally accepted among biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain systems is an established principle in geology."

Within a decade of this statement, the geosynclinal theory had been discarded and replaced by the theory of plate tectonics. Modern evolutionary theory (in the macro sense) has such a weak empirical foundation that it may suffer a similar fate.

They rightly concluded that the signal was designed, although they had no prior knowledge of the designer’s identity (i.e., they had no answer to question 3) or of how the designer broadcast his signal (i.e., they had no answer to question 2).

Within a decade of this statement, the geosynclinal theory had been discarded and replaced by the theory of plate tectonics. Modern evolutionary theory (in the macro sense) has such a weak empirical foundation that it may suffer a similar fate.

Henry: "That inference would be logical because the object looks like things that you already know to have been constructed by somebody."

We intuitively infer design every day (in most cases without knowing the identity of the designer or how he actualized his design). The purpose of design theory is to formulate design inferences in a scientifically rigorous way, and then apply that formulation to complex biological systems. It's a work in progress, not a done deal. If evolutionary theory had been held to the same standard of theoretical maturity that critics apply to ID theory, evolutionary theory would have been abandoned about 20 years after Darwin published his masterpiece. After all, at that point in evolutionary theory's "evolution," the theory had no explanation for the source of variations in populations.

Henry: "That doesn’t apply to life forms - they aren’t build, they reproduce."

The abiity of life forms to reproduce is not the issue. What caused those life forms to come into being is the issue.

JohnBrown: Imagine that you're the first man on Mars. During your exploration of the red planet, you come across a mysterious formation of rocks. Much to your amazement, the rocks are arranged as giant letters that spell out "Welcome to Mars, fourth rock from the Sun. We hope you enjoy your stay." You instantly - and quite correctly - infer that the rock formation was designed, even though you don't know how the rocks came to be arranged in that way or who the designer might have been. The rock formation itself signals design because it exhibits the hallmark of design, namely, specified complexity.

Such an inference might be warranted if long sequences of “slightly different” species were ever found in the fossil record. But sequences of that kind are conspicuous by their absence. The fossil record is characterized by discontinuity, not continuity, and the discontinuities are often measured in the millions of years.

Actually, Henry, it’s never necessary to know a thing about (2) and (3) to detect design. Indeed, why would you even try to answer (2) and (3) unless you knew that the object in question had been designed? Those questions are senseless when applied to objects that weren’t designed. Maybe an imaginary scenario will help you see that nothing needs to be known about (2) and (3) to confidently arrive at a design inference….

One does indeed look for “signs of engineering,” otherwise known as “signs of design.” ID theorists argue (persuasively, in my view) that specified complexity is the most reliable sign of design, so if an object (or a system, or an event) exhibits specified complexity, a design inference is warranted. A design inference does not depend on knowledge of the designer, his motives, or his methods of actualizing his design.

Many scientific research possibilities will open up if design theorists succeed in convincing the scientific mainstream that the apparent design in many biological systems is actual (or intelligent) design. I expect that trying to determine how those designs were actualized would occupy the energies of generations of scientists, but research on that scale can’t happen unless design wins sufficient scientific consensus to marshal the institutional and financial support that all scientific research needs.

With regard to the identity of the designer, ID theorists argue (correctly, in my view) that such a question lies beyond the reach of science - that the question should be referred to philosophers and theologians.

This is called “willful blindness.”

My prior commitment is to scientific inquiry being free from a priori philosophical commitments.

You need to direct this question to theologians. ID theorists aren’t in the busines of showing that “some God did something.”

I’m not a design theorist; I’m simply someone who finds the argument for design persuasive. But if you’d like to see some of the evidence for design in the biosphere, allow me to suggest the obvious: read some of the works of design theorists.

Bill: "Contrast this with a tomato or a turtle: we have no idea how to make one, we have no idea why someone would want to make one, so the 'watchmaker' inference does not apply."

Our inability to construct a complex biological system does not entail that the system was not designed.
As intelligent as we are, we can't build even the simplest biological systems from scratch (so to speak). Human technology doesn't begin to approach the sophistication of the technology seen in living organisms. Our computers, for example, pale in technological sophistication to the human brain. Ordinary sensibility would suggest that the generation of life's extraordinarily complex technology requires an intelligence far superior to ours. Yet neo-Darwinism insists that the answer to life's complexity lies not in intelligence, but in unintelligence. It asks us to believe that unintelligent material causes possess far greater creative abilities than any intelligence might possess. Neo-Darwinism's call to faith in materialism reminds me of a passage from molecular geneticist Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," to wit:

"To the sceptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason."

The neo-Darwinian explanation of life's complexities is not necessarily false simply because it's preposterous, but we ought to see some pretty convincing evidence before we accept it. To date, that convincing evidence has not been forthcoming. There's adequate evidence to support the notion of descent with modification, and there's adequate evidence to support the notion that Darwinian mechanisms can produce minor adaptive changes (such as bacteria adapting to antibiotics). But the evidence supporting the macroevolutionary claims of neo-Darwinism (such as the claim that Darwinian mechanisms caused fish to evolve into men, or that those mechanisms caused sexual reproduction to evolve from asexual reproduction, or that those mechanisms caused the structures and processes of color vision to evolve from light-sensitive spots, and so on) is virtually nonexistent. It's certainly not the sort of overwhelming evidence we ought to see before we accept the preposterous macroevolutionary claims of neo-Darwinism.

Note: When Denton referred to "a purely random process," he was referring to the creative mechanism in neo-Darwinian theory, that is to say, to random genetic mutations. He's well aware that natural selection operates with law-like regularity, but natural selection is not creative; it acts only on that which already exists.

So you can "intuitively" infer design but you refuse to believe that hox genes could possibly evolve unless someone was there to witness the event directly. Nice double standard. Well I can intuitively infer evolution, so that proves it.

Funny, but when I google "hox gene evolution" I get 66,200 hits. I immediately found several references that refer specifically to the evolution of the hox genes themselves:

Nature 376:479-485 (1995)
PNAS 81(13):4115-4119 (1984)
Gene 387(1-2):21-30 (2007)
Ann Rev Genet 28:423-42 (1994)
Curr Op Genet Dev (1993)
PNAS 90(13):6300-6304 (1993)
Genome Biol 4(2):R12 (2003)

Now of course none of these have any eyewitness accounts of the mutations actually happening while someone watched and all of them assume that modern evolutionary theory is valid. They use phylogenetic analysis with molecular data sets and show how the hox genes fit the expected pattern. Indeed, you can draw the same phylogenies using hox gene or ribosomal sequences. This research has provided confirmation of many of the important branch points on the tree of life, as well as providing the mechanistic basis for the evolution of diferent body types.

If you want to look only at papers that assume that evolution didn't occur, you probably won't find many on hox gene evolution. As far as "Darwinian mechanisms" go, I don't know what that means. Hox genes evolve in ways that Darwin couldn't imagine. Oh well, maybe when the list gets to 50 everyone will be convinced.

The history of science is chock full of “firmly established theories” that ended up in the dustbin of discarded scientific theories.

teach: "...if you don’t mind, could you explain it in a way that I might be able to incorporate into a classroom lesson? I imagine something like this - I show pictures of rock piles and ask my class - designed or not designed? How do I explain the 'right' answer?"

Suppose you were sailing into Vancouver Harbor. On your right you observe a hillside covered with an apparently random display of wildflowers. On your left you observe flowers growing in a pattern that says "Welcome to Vancouver." Both patterns are complex, but only the pattern on your left warrants a design inference. Why? Because it conforms to specifications found in the English language. The pattern of wildflowers to your right is merely complex, but the pattern of flowers to your left exhibits specified complexity, which is a reliable indicator of design. Your class would identify a rock pile that had been designed by determining that the rock pile is both complex and that the pattern of rocks in the rock pile conforms to an independently given specification (or specifications). If no such determinations could be made, no design inferences would be warranted.

Unless you're willing to lose your job, I wouldn't advise introducing your class to any of the concepts of design theory. The intellectual tyranny of the Darwinian establishment has long arms. I assume, however, that you were merely trying to be provocative in asking your question.

David Stanton: "So you can 'intuitively' infer design but you refuse to believe that hox genes could possibly evolve unless someone was there to witness the event directly. Nice double standard."

You missed the point. What I said was that design theory formulates what we do intuitively (i.e., infer design) into a scientifically rigorous procedure for detecting design. To explain that fully would require me to write a book for you. But since such books have already been written, I'll refer you to them instead. You might start with Dembski's "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence."

David: "Well I can intuitively infer evolution, so that proves it."

As I said, you missed the point.

David: "Funny, but when I google 'hox gene evolution' I get 66,200 hits. I immediately found several references that refer specifically to the evolution of the hox genes themselves..."

So did I. And each one of those references that I read did nothing to explain how hox genes evolved. They simply explained how evolutionary biologists were attempting to fit hox genes into the neo-Darwinian account of how complex biological systems came into being.

Both patterns [consisting of wildflowers] are complex, but only the pattern on your left warrants a design inference.

Both patterns are complex, but only the pattern on your left warrants a design inference. Why? Because it conforms to specifications found in the English language.

1) Was this system designed? 2) How was the design actualized? 3) Who was the designer? As ID theory is currently construed, the only question that design theorists are addressing is the first question. Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense to ask the other two questions until the first question has been confidently answered in the affirmative.

JohnBrown: teach: "...if you don’t mind, could you explain it in a way that I might be able to incorporate into a classroom lesson? I imagine something like this - I show pictures of rock piles and ask my class - designed or not designed? How do I explain the 'right' answer?" Suppose you were sailing into Vancouver Harbor. On your right you observe a hillside covered with an apparently random display of wildflowers. On your left you observe flowers growing in a pattern that says "Welcome to Vancouver." Both patterns are complex, but only the pattern on your left warrants a design inference. Why? Because it conforms to specifications found in the English language. The pattern of wildflowers to your right is merely complex, but the pattern of flowers to your left exhibits specified complexity, which is a reliable indicator of design. Your class would identify a rock pile that had been designed by determining that the rock pile is both complex and that the pattern of rocks in the rock pile conforms to an independently given specification (or specifications). If no such determinations could be made, no design inferences would be warranted.

JB wrote:

"So did I. And each one of those references that I read did nothing to explain how hox genes evolved. They simply explained how evolutionary biologists were attempting to fit hox genes into the neo-Darwinian account of how complex biological systems came into being."

And there you have it folks, moving the goalposta again. Didn't I say that's what he would do? Now apparently he wants to know where hox genes come from, or something, I can't tell. Oh well.

And there you have it folks, moving the goalposts again. Didn’t I say that’s what he would do? Now apparently he wants to know where hox genes come from, or something, I can’t tell. Oh well.

To explain that fully would require me to write a book for you. But since such books have already been written, I’ll refer you to them instead. You might start with Dembski’s “No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence.”

JB wrote:

"What I said was that design theory formulates what we do intuitively (i.e., infer design) into a scientifically rigorous procedure for detecting design."

No it doesn't and everyone knows it. If it did it would have been used to quantify "specified complexity". If it did it would have been used to identify something that had been designed. If it did it would have been published in a scientific journal. If it did, it would have convinced more that a "small minority" of scientists. Dembski's argument is completely without scientific merit and everyone knows it. I suspect that Dembski himself knows it.

OK, now the whining will start about how ID has been "expelled" without a fair hearing. Of course no one is going to buy that either.

Should have been dessert, but desert also seems to capture the essence of the work.

teach: "Is the inference of design solely dependent on who is interpreting the information?"

It could be dependent on the observer (the same is true of an inference to unguided evolution). If the observer is unable to discern that a pattern (or an object, or an event, etc.) exhibits specified complexity, he'd have no warrant for making a design inference. In the case of your Korean, if he failed to make a design inference when he observed the pattern of flowers spelling out "Welcome to Vancouver," he'd simply be wrong. Design in fact constitutes the best explanation for the pattern of flowers, but if your Korean failed to draw a design inference, then he simply failed to recognize the specified complexity exhibited by the pattern of flowers. If specified complexity can't be recognized, it can't produce a design inference. The reality of design is not dependent upon the observer, but detecting design depends heavily upon the intellectual aptitude and knowledge of the observer. That's true of all scientific inferences.

JB: "...each one of those references that I read did nothing to explain how hox genes evolved. They simply explained how evolutionary biologists were attempting to fit hox genes into the neo-Darwinian account of how complex biological systems came into being."

David Stanton: "And there you have it folks, moving the goalposta again. Didn’t I say that’s what he would do? Now apparently he wants to know where hox genes come from, or something, I can’t tell. Oh well."

How have I moved the goalposts? From the very outset of the discussion of hox genes, I said that how such genes might have evolved was a problem for neo-Darwinism. In response you indicated that biologists can explain how hox genes evolved, and you insisted that I read some of the papers explaining the evolution of hox genes. Well, I did that, and none of the papers I read explained how hox genes evolved, even though the papers were titled "Hox genes evolution" (or something similar).

It's no wonder that you "can't tell." You're apparently not paying attention.

David Stanton; "OK, now the whining will start about how ID has been 'expelled' without a fair hearing. Of course no one is going to buy that either."

No whining is needed. All one needs to do is read the kind of comments posted here (and on other Darwinist blogs, such as Pharyngula) to know that ID hasn't received a fair hearing. A fair hearing is at hand when the scientific establishment says, "That's an intriguing idea. Let's look into it." A fair hearing is not at hand when the scientific establishment says (as it has), "We will not consider that idea. We control the definition of 'scientific,' and we deem that your idea is unscientific."

Right on cue.

Well a fair hearing is when you are asked if you have any equation to quantify a parameter that you claim is important and you produce one. A fair hearing is when you are asked for evidence to support you views, any evidence at all, and you produce some. A fair hearing is when you submit your ideas for peer review. A fair hearing is when you make testable hypotheses and confirm them with controlled experiments.

Remind me again, which of the above has Dembski done? Oh, that's right, none. And by the way, Dembski admitted to me that he found the argument of plagarized errors compelling enough to admit that common descent was true. Do you agree with that?

Dembski was not expelled, he was flunked. There is a difference. His ideas have been considered, they have not passed a single test. He got a fair hearing, more that fair, considering that he never submitted anything to a real journal. He claimed that that was because it takes two years to get anything published, that was five years ago. Talk about "promissory immaterialism", this guy takes the prize.

JB,

Now I get it. When you said "evolved" you really meant "originated". Well, some of those references do address the question of how hox genes originated, but what difference does it make? What does it matter where the genes came from? The genes are important in evolution, period. They evolved just like every other genes.

You can play semantic games all you want, but that is definately moving the goalposts. You started out with, "hox genes don't affect development", moved to "hox genes can't change", then "how did hox genes evolve" and now "where did hox genes come from". Go read the papers yourself if you really want to know.

David Stanton: "(Dembski's) ideas have been considered, they have not passed a single test. He got a fair hearing..."

Uh-huh. Anyone familiar with Dembski's treatment by the Darwinian establishment will know that his ideas have hardly gotten a "fair hearing."

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1438

From an interview with the Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa....

CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, "The Design Inference" and "No Free Lunch") helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them. There’s a reason for this slow start. My work in "The Design Inference" was essentially a work on the philosophical foundations of probability theory, trying to understand how to interpret probabilities in certain contexts. This led naturally to some ideas about information and the type of information used in drawing design inferences. My book "No Free Lunch" was a semi-popular overview of where I saw the ID movement headed on the topic of information. The hard work of developing these ideas into a rigorous information-theoretic formalism for doing science really began only in 2005 with some unpublished papers on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design that appeared on my website (www.designinference.com). With the formation of Robert Marks's Evolutionary Informatics Lab in June 2007 (Marks is a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor University), and work by him and me on the conservation of information (several papers of which are available at http://www.EvoInfo.org), I think ID is finally in a position to challenge certain fundamental assumptions in the natural sciences about the nature and origin of information. This, I believe, will have a large impact on science.

CA: Your critics (such as Wein, Perakh, Shallit, Elsberry, Wolpert and others) seem unsatisfied with your work. They charge your work as being somewhat esoteric and lacking intellectual rigor. What do you say to that charge?

WD: Most of these critics are responding to my book "No Free Lunch." As I explained in the preface of that book, its aim was to provide enough technical details so that experts could fill in details, but enough exposition so that the general reader could grasp the essence of my project. The book seems to have succeeded with the general reader and with some experts, though mainly with those who were already well-disposed toward ID. In any case, it became clear after that publication of that book that I would need to fill in the mathematical details myself, something I have been doing right along (see my articles described under "mathematical foundations of intelligent design" at www.designinference.com) and which has now been taken up in earnest in a collaboration with my friend and Baylor colleague Robert Marks at his Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.EvoInfo.org).

CA: Are you evading the tough questions?

WD: Of course not. But tough questions take time to answer, and I have been patiently answering them. I find it interesting now that I have started answering the critics’ questions with full mathematical rigor (see the publications page at www.EvoInfo.org) that they are largely silent. Jeff Shallit, for instance, when I informed him of some work of mine on the conservation of information told me that he refuses to address it because I had not adequately addressed his previous objections to my work, though the work on conservation of information about which I was informing him was precisely in response to his concerns. Likewise, I’ve interacted with Wolpert. Once I started filling in the mathematical details of my work, however, he fell silent.

The fact that JohnBrown can't explain the design detection process objectively, without reference to analogies, shows her's no substance to it. It's just a lot of word games.

JohnBrown said: Anyone familiar with Dembski’s treatment by the Darwinian establishment will know that his ideas have hardly gotten a “fair hearing.”

Uh-huh. Anyone familiar with Dembski’s treatment by the Darwinian establishment will know that his ideas have hardly gotten a “fair hearing.”

reminds me most of “The Wagnerian Inquisition: - EVERYBODY expects the Wagnerian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is repetition… repetition and dullness… dullness and repetition… Our two weapons are dullness and repetition… and ruthless inefficiency… Our three weapons are dullness and repetition and ruthless inefficiency… and an almost fanatical devotion to the Cause… Our four… no… Amongst our arguments… Amongst our argumentation… are such elements as dullness, repetition… - I’ll come in again. (Exit)”

The fact that JohnBrown can’t explain the design detection process objectively, without reference to analogies, shows there’s no substance to it. It’s just a lot of word games.

OK. I'm convinced. With few exceptions, you're a bunch of insufferable asses incapable of cordial debate.

Ta-ta.

JohnBrown: OK. I'm convinced. With few exceptions, you're a bunch of insufferable asses incapable of cordial debate. Ta-ta.

"I'm leaving because you're all so mean! You won't give Intelligent Design a chance because you're unfairly ruling out supernatural causes! It's not my fault I didn't provide a clear and concise demonstration of how Intelligent Design is a science even though I was asked repeatedly to do so!

Sorry JB, Dembski just doesn't cut it as a scientist and certainly not as a biologist. Appealing to his authority will not get you anywhere. It has nothing to do with philosophical committments, it has everything to do with real science. ID has none. You are still free to believe in it, but why in the world would real scientists stop doing real science just because some guy who never published anything in a real journal cries about not being accepted?

Now maybe if the ID crown would start researching hox genes. Maybe then they could make a design inference of some kind. Maybe then they could name a designer. Maybe then they could say what was designed, where, when, how and why. Real scientists do real research, ID does none. I'll stick with the science. You are free to do whatever you choose.

JohnBrown: OK. I'm convinced. With few exceptions, you're a bunch of insufferable asses incapable of cordial debate. Ta-ta.

He never explained why a little bit of specified complexity warrants a design inference, while a lot of specified complexity doesn’t.

The history of science is chock full of “firmly established theories” that ended up in the dustbin of discarded scientific theories.

We intuitively infer design every day (in most cases without knowing the identity of the designer or how he actualized his design).

If evolutionary theory had been held to the same standard of theoretical maturity that critics apply to ID theory, evolutionary theory would have been abandoned about 20 years after Darwin published his masterpiece.

Ordinary sensibility would suggest that the generation of life’s extraordinarily complex technology requires an intelligence far superior to ours.

Note: When Denton referred to “a purely random process,” he was referring to the creative mechanism in neo-Darwinian theory, that is to say, to random genetic mutations. He’s well aware that natural selection operates with law-like regularity, but natural selection is not creative; it acts only on that which already exists.

The pattern of wildflowers to your right is merely complex, but the pattern of flowers to your left exhibits specified complexity, which is a reliable indicator of design.

Ta-ta.

What I said was that design theory formulates what we do intuitively (i.e., infer design) into a scientifically rigorous procedure for detecting design.

On behalf of Canada, I offer my most profound apologies for the existence of the John Brown Clown.

blah blah blah materialist blah blah blah Darwinian blah blah blah blah design blah blah blah conspiracy blah blah blah civility blah blah blah persecution blah blah blah.

Take your ball and go home, clown. No one cares.

Oh, I almost forgot:

Complexity blah blah blah information blah blah blah.

When something resembles things that people know have been built by other people, that’s when one may appropriately infer that something was engineered.

I just know I'm going to regret this, but...

If anyone really is interested in the ORIGIN of hox genes, a recent paper in Current Biology describes the evidence:

Current Biology 17(8):706-710 (2007)

The paper shows that NK genes were present prior to the origin of the first hox gene in sponges. It shows how the original hox gene arose from these ancestral genes. It goes on to descrobe how subsequent hox genes and gene clusters were produced through gene duplication and divergence.

Of course it really doesn't matter. The origin of hox genes was never the topic and people who don't want to believe it will never be convinced by the "pathetic level of detail" regardless.

Still, the paper shows that we do in fact know how hox genes evolved. The evidence was not discovered by ID or ID theory or ID theorists or even cdesign proponentists. It was discovered by real scientists doing real reseach and publishing in real journals. "ID theorists" should take a lesson.

Hi, David,

I read the summary of the article in Current Biology that "shows that we do in fact know how hox genes arose." What I learned from the summary is that we don't actually know any such thing. The summary indicates that the article details evidence suggesting how hox genes evolved and that the authors of the article infer that they did so by gene duplications. Indeed, the authors used the words "suggest" and "infer," not the word "know" to describe their research into hox gene evolution. It seems to me that the article shows that the evolution of hox genes by Darwinian means is assumed rather than actually demonstrated, and that you're quite overstating the condition of our knowledge of hox genes evolution.

Also, as I understand the thread about hox genes, the evolution of those genes was indeed the issue from the outset.
At least, that was the issue as posed by JohnBrown. Why do you say that it was "never the topic"?

Thanks for listening...

Judy

P.S. I think JohnBrown made some pretty good arguments, and I don't understand why so many other posters felt obliged to heap abuse on him. I don't trust people who argue in that way. It appeared that JohnBrown wanted to talk about evolution and ID while everyone else wanted to turn the conversation into an indictment of JohnBrown's intelligence and honesty. I'm not surprised that he left, but I am surprised that he stuck around for as long as he did. Aside from what I wrote above, I'm not going to join the debate. Like JohnBrown, I think evolutionary theory makes some pretty preposterous claims - claims that are largely unsubstantiated - but I don't want to endure your abuse by arguing against what you "know."

Judy, the Hox gene complex in vertebrates arose through gene duplications, and later, modification of those duplicated genes. This is the conclusion after comparison with invertebrate chordates, such as the lancet, Amphioxus, which only has one set of Hox genes, with those of gnathostome vertebrates (vertebrates with true jaws, i.e., modern fish + tetrapods), who have around 4 sets of Hox genes. Furthermore, comparison of each set of gnathostome Hox genes shows that each set has undergone different mutations to become very different from each other.

Having said that, the abuse that John Brown received is well-deserved, as in his arguments, a) he insisted that "fossils do not prove Darwinism," and yet, when asked what they proved instead, he launched into a big semantics song and dance about how they could prove anything, b) he insisted that Intelligent Design was a scientific theory, and claimed that design could be detected without need of information about the designer, yet was physically incapable of producing an example of detecting design where it was not necessary to have or need information about the designer, c) he argued that "irreducible complexity" is a valid scientific term, nevermind that all of the irreducibly complex systems were arbitrarily chosen by Michael Behe, and that the evolutionary histories of all of Behe's irreducibly complex systems are being thoroughly studied, d) insisted that Science is wrong because scientists are devoted to unfairly excluding supernatural explanations, nevermind that refusing to exclude supernatural explanations from Science would rocket us back into the Dark Ages, if not the Stone Age, and e) his arguments were scripted from notes from the Discovery Institute and he tended to support his arguments using semantics games he admonished us for using in his previous alias of "Calvin."