Why Darwinism Is Doomed

WorldNetDaily ^ | 09/27/2006 | Jonathan Wells

[betty boop]

Not much to say here. Yockey mentions Adami on page 168 but mainly to dismiss his theory of complexity that Yockey evidently thinks is inferior to his own. It seems Yockey prefers the Kolmogorov/Chaitin algorithmic ("least description") type. I gather Yockey thinks that the latter definition of complexity fits better with the Shannon communication model.

But Adami is certainly right about the book having typo problems. As to whether the book has been adequately peer reviewed: I imagine that a highly reputable publisher like Cambridge University Press would have seen to this.

I gather the two gentlemen have strong differences of opinion. So what else is new?

[Elsie]

I think the problem with his side is that, in the end, all questions are rhetorical because all answers are known.

How WRONG you are!

(It's called FAITH ;^)

[Elsie]

Insulting me does not demonstrate, to any degree, that your claims are correct.

However....

Insulting ME probably means I did something to deserve it.

[Elsie]

That must be why he sent me off for an hour to find stuff he asked for, and then never responded.

I have another life....

---

I could live with his beliefs if he were a gentleman.

Kill the messenger?

[Elsie]

No...

I wanna touch YOUR na is hinted at in the textmessaging.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

No, it's called "reading and considering the evidence someone has gone throught the trouble of providing you". There is a *lot* to know in even one small branch of science that supports the SToE. I've certainly learned a great deal from the information thoughtful FReepers have posted. Yet I have not *once* seen a CR/ID-er admit that they did not know some bit of information that was provided. Transitional fossil finds or speciation events will be claimed to have never occured, and yet when evidence is provided to the contrary, is there ever an acknowledgment, or an admission of learning something new?

Does your definition of faith include ignoring physical evidence? If it does, you should at least state that from the outset! Admit that no amount of evidence will convince you rather than disingenuously claim that no evidence has been provided. What would Jesus do? I am certain he would do the honest and honorable thing.

[js1138]

Where is the equivalent of punk-eek on your spectrum?

The gradient is an analogy.

But it isn't a bad one. Take a look at the width of the yellow band and compare it to the width of blue or red.

The fact hat some transitions take place faster than others does not mean they take place in one step.

The "rapid" transitions of punk eek would still involve thousands, or hundreds of thousands of generations.

As for anteaters and aardvarks -- gee, maybe you've found the silver bullet. Want to bet on it as more and more genomes are decoded?

It is posible to devise a test of the TofE given current technology. For example the TofE predicts that genetic similarities between species are more likely to be related to the timing of their last common ancestor than to their place in the economy of nature. Therefore if we pick 2 groups of mammals and predict DNA similar/different then test this with gene sequencing the TofE would have to make a prediction (since any genetic finding is compatible with ID the same would not be asked of it). No tricks here, all species meet the accepted definition of mammal as the females secrete milk and they all have hair on some part of their bodies at some point in their lives. Their putative fossil ancestors meet the criteria for mammals in having 3 ossicles and a single dentary bone for a mandible. In group #1 we’ll put the spiny anteater, the banded anteater, the scaly anteater, the giant anteater and the aardvark. In the second group we’ll put the arctic fox, the giant panda, the walrus, the mink and the tiger. The TofE would have to predict that the species in group #2 would be more closely related genetically. If this would turn out not to be the case perhaps evolution would’t be falsified but it would have recieved a serious injury to one of its key hypotheses.

Source

[js1138]

I have another life....

But in it, you didn't stop posting to other threads.

[Last Visible Dog]

Nothing. Why?

That was the topic of the thread.

[Last Visible Dog]

The concept of "evidence", and the rules about what does and does not constitute evidence were in place before I got here.

So? Just because you don't agree does not make it magically become non-evidence - it is just evidence you don't accept. Spin all you want, evidence was presented - you just don't agree with the evidence. BTW: could you state these "rules of evidence" that you are speaking of?

[Last Visible Dog]

Intellectual relativism that would make the leftiest left proud.

Please explain the relativism in my statement. Once again you are exposing your ignorance in your attempt to "get me". Relativism is a qualitative judgment - I made a quantitative statement (the only qualitative statement I made was "I don't agree with the evidence presented") You don't understand what you are talking about.

[tacticalogic]

So? Just because you don't agree does not make it magically become non-evidence - it is just evidence you don't accept. Spin all you want, evidence was presented - you just don't agree with the evidence. BTW: could you state these "rules of evidence" that you are speaking of?

The "rules of evidence" dictate that what is presented as evidence be logically associated with the conclusions it is purported to support. There is no logical association between the Gould's quote and the conclusions Wells has drawn from it. If what he presents as "evidence" does not support his conclusions then it cannot properly be held as evidence.

If we accept your assertion that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder" and I don't see anything he's presented as evidence then you don't have any basis to establish that it is.

[taxesareforever]

We all sin every day... Got a reference on this?

Psst, psst. The Bible. Romans 3:23

[Elsie]

What would Jesus do?

 

Appeal to authority?   ;^)

 

What would Jesus SAY???

 

Matthew 19:4
  "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'

 

No mention of cells or ameobas or slime...

[Elsie]

Take a look at the width of the yellow band and compare it to the width of blue or red.

Which are different for every individual.

(Color blindness)

[Elsie]

Therefore if we pick 2 groups of mammals and predict DNA similar/different then test this with gene sequencing the TofE would have to make a prediction (since any genetic finding is compatible with ID the same would not be asked of it).

Yessir; I sure like that animal; I think I'll make some more almost like it.

--GOD

[Elsie]

But in it, you didn't stop posting to other threads.

My multi-tasker must have malfunctioned.

[Elsie]

Romans 3: 23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God


HMMmmm... where is the DAILY part??

[Last Visible Dog]

If we accept your assertion that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder" and I don't see anything he's presented as evidence then you don't have any basis to establish that it is.

So what you are saying is "the evidence in the article that you don't accept is not evidence"? The world does not revolve around you (so to speak)

[tacticalogic]

So what you are saying is "the evidence in the article that you don't accept is not evidence"? The world does not revolve around you (so to speak)

Nor does it revolve around Mr. Wells. If "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", and I don't see any evidence then there is no evidence, whether you and Mr. Wells choose to believe that it exists or not.

When you declared that "evidence is in the eye of the beholder", you made it purely subjective. There is no longer any discernible "right" answer to whether there is evidence or not. I don't agree with this, but it appears to be the only definition of "evidence" you will accept, so there you have it.