The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[Remedy]

Texas Tech University biology professor Michael Dini recently came under fire for refusing to write letters of recommendation for students unable to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the following question: "How do you think the human species originated?"

For asking this question, Professor Dini was accused of engaging in overt religious discrimination. As a result, a legal complaint was filed against Dini by the Liberty Legal Institute. Supporters of the complaint feared that consequences of the widespread adoption of Dini’s requirement would include a virtual ban of Christians from the practice of medicine and other related fields.

In an effort to defend his criteria for recommendation, Dini claimed that medicine was first rooted in the practice of magic. Dini said that religion then became the basis of medicine until it was replaced by science. After positing biology as the science most important to the study of medicine, he also posited evolution as the "central, unifying principle of biology" which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, which applies to all species.

In addition to claiming that someone who rejects the most important theory in biology cannot properly practice medicine, Dini suggested that physicians who ignore or neglect Darwinism are prone to making bad clinical decisions. He cautioned that a physician who ignores data concerning the scientific origins of the species cannot expect to remain a physician for long. He then rhetorically asked the following question: "If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?"

In an apparent preemptive strike against those who would expose the weaknesses of macro-evolution, Dini claimed that "one can validly refer to the ‘fact’ of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known." Finally, he cautioned that a good scientist "would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs."

The legal aspect of this controversy ended this week with Dini finally deciding to change his recommendation requirements. But that does not mean it is time for Christians to declare victory and move on. In fact, Christians should be demanding that Dini’s question be asked more often in the court of public opinion. If it is, the scientific community will eventually be indicted for its persistent failure to address this very question in scientific terms.

Christians reading this article are already familiar with the creation stories found in the initial chapters of Genesis and the Gospel of John. But the story proffered by evolutionists to explain the origin of the species receives too little attention and scrutiny. In his two most recent books on evolution, Phillip Johnson gives an account of evolutionists’ story of the origin of the human species which is similar to the one below:

In the beginning there was the unholy trinity of the particles, the unthinking and unfeeling laws of physics, and chance. Together they accidentally made the amino acids which later began to live and to breathe. Then the living, breathing entities began to imagine. And they imagined God. But then they discovered science and then science produced Darwin. Later Darwin discovered evolution and the scientists discarded God.

Darwinists, who proclaim themselves to be scientists, are certainly entitled to hold this view of the origin of the species. But that doesn’t mean that their view is, therefore, scientific. They must be held to scientific standards requiring proof as long as they insist on asking students to recite these verses as a rite of passage into their "scientific" discipline.

It, therefore, follows that the appropriate way to handle professors like Michael Dini is not to sue them but, instead, to demand that they provide specific proof of their assertion that the origin of all species can be traced to primordial soup. In other words, we should pose Dr. Dini’s question to all evolutionists. And we should do so in an open public forum whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Recently, I asked Dr. Dini for that proof. He didn’t respond.

Dini’s silence as well as the silence of other evolutionists speaks volumes about the current status of the discipline of biology. It is worth asking ourselves whether the study of biology has been hampered by the widespread and uncritical acceptance of Darwinian principles. To some observers, its study has largely become a hollow exercise whereby atheists teach other atheists to blindly follow Darwin without asking any difficult questions.

At least that seems to be the way things have evolved.

[Galatians513]

Abiogensis is not part of evolution.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say Abiogenesis is a weakness of materialism, rather than evolution.

And the evidence for Macroevolution is there in the fossil record. You just have to be willing to look.

If the evidence was there, there would be no need for Punctuated Equilibrium, plus the genetic tree wouldn't look like a tangled bush that totally contradicts the morpholigical tree

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: de·ceive
Pronunciation: di-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·ceived; de·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take -- more at HEAVE
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 archaic : ENSNARE
2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill
3 obsolete : CHEAT
4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
5 archaic : to while away
intransitive senses : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression < appearances can deceive >
- de·ceiv·er noun
- de·ceiv·ing·ly /-'sE-vi[ng]-lE/ adverb
synonyms DECEIVE, MISLEAD, DELUDE, BEGUILE mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. DECEIVE implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness < tried to deceive me about the cost >. MISLEAD implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional < I was misled by the confusing sign >. DELUDE implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth < we were deluded into thinking we were safe >. BEGUILE stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving < was beguiled by false promises >.

[Right Wing Professor]

genetic tree wouldn't look like a tangled bush that totally contradicts the morpholigical tre

It doesn't. Genetics has occasionally led to rearrangements of the morphological tree, but I can't think of an obvious contradiction. Care to cite one?

[js1138]

Apply a bit of heat and pressure and the kernel explodes.

[whattajoke]

----From the Western University, Department of Biology---

Alright... I've been doing some digging (in the non literal sense. Let me be clear with you, since you require this: I did not go outside with a shovel and actually dig the ground, I've been "digging" through the net and WWU's website. Got that?

It appears the emminent David L. Alles did indeed work at WWU and did indeed teach a couple courses there. Note the past tense... although I have no idea why he no longer teaches there, or anywhere according to google among others.
The course he taught that used LVD's purported support of his idea was called, "Introduction to Science and Biology." Interesting, notice the distinction between generalized "science" and "biology." This course is for non science majors to fulfill a science requirement. Fair enough.

Mr. Alles seems to approach teaching non science majors from a very broad view. His lectures and syllabi try to tie in many different concepts, which can be pretty interesting. Then again, they can be used by the LVD's of the world to bolster his porous theories. Since LVD only linked an acrobat description, making it difficult to get the true gist and context of why a biology teacher would evoke cosmology in the first place. But I think a fair reading of his entire course outline will put it in better perspective. Here's his old course outlines and such.

At any rate, one guy's course outline from a small liberal arts school does not a coherent theory make.

[Aric2000]

ROFL!!!

That reminds me, that sounds really good about now.

BRB

I love microwave ovens!!

[Galatians513]

Genetics has occasionally led to rearrangements of the morphological tree, but I can't think of an obvious contradiction. Care to cite one

From what I've read the contortions of the geneolical tree are at a very basic, fundamental level...

As Doolittle indicates, from the base of the tree of life, it is not "tree-like." In the "bush" below (Figure 3), it is impossible to reconstruct such trees, as the observed distribution of characters create something which looks more like a tangled thicket or a bush. The three major "domains" of life--Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya have a distribution of characteristics which does not allow a tree to be constructed to describe their alleged ancestral relationships. This is due to a character distribution which is not what one would predict if they inherited their genes through common ancestry

[Galatians513]

The father of molecular systematics Carl Woese found that conflicts in phylogenies are present not only at the base of the tree, saying, "[p]hylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, form its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."21 For example, de Jong noted that,"the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals [of] the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce [the mammalian tree] to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows.12". Cao et al. found that molecular-based phylogenies conflicted sharply with previously established phylogenies of major mammal groups, such as ferungulates, rhodents, and primates22.

[Galatians513]

Some studies have tried to analyze the general relationships between animals and vertebrate groups through molecular data. One study analyzed molecular data from 10 different vertebrates and found that using different mitochondrial genes, twenty different disagreeing phylogenetic trees were produced, which differed at both recent and ancient divergence points23. Brown and Naylor24 found that trees based off of entire mitochondrial DNA genomes for 19 multicellular (metazoan) organsism did not match the previously accepted phylogeny for chordates, or within chordates, for vertebrates. Finally, a study which compared many proteines in humans, nematodes, arthropods, and yeast found that 2 starkly different trees were produced, depending on which genes were used25. This pattern of different genes yielding very different phylogenetic trees is very common in the scientific literature, and shows that molecular data fail to give a consistent picture of the alleged common descent ancestry of organisms.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Could you please tell us where you are cutting and pasting from?

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm afraid you misread my request. I asked for a citation, not a gob of pasted text from an unknown source. i'd like to know what specific genetic evidence contradicts what specific morphological evidence, with a reference to the original source so I can check it.

[Galatians513]

Sorry, here 'tis. Can't remember how to do hot links:

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm

[Lurking Libertarian]

Thanks.

[f.Christian]

... <*a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm" > hot link <*/a> !

... less *

... hot link !

[Galatians513]

Gracias

Can't do that sorta thing in COBOL

[Stultis]

but I can't think of an obvious contradiction [between genetic and morphologically derived evolutionary "trees"]. Care to cite one?

Well, Galatians513 wasn't entirely clear, simply referring to "contradictory" morphological and genetic "trees". I've clarified in the angle brackets above, but a couple things might be meant. For instance one might also refer to what might be called "typological" classifications of organisms. These would group organisms according to "type," without regard to evolutionary relationships. Contrasting would be "evolutionary" classifications, which group organisms according to the inferred typology of evolutionary relationships.

Conventional taxonomy tends to conform to patterns of evolutionary relationships, just because it was originally oriented (under the guidance of Linneaus in the 17th Century) to the pattern of "groups within groups" that is a relect of evolution. Of course a creationist might argue that God simply decided to create according to a pattern of groups within groups.

Therefore the most interesting cases are those were "typological" and "evolutionary" classifications do NOT agree. In these instances creationists would expect new lines of comparative data (discovered subsequent to the gross morphological criteria on which classifications were initially based) should conform with typological rather than evolutionary schemes. Evolutionists would expect the opposite.

A couple concrete instances come to mind. (I'm sure that many more would occur to a trained biologist.) For instance (as I mentioned in another context recently) even though crocodiles are classified as "reptiles" along with snakes and lizards, they actually share a more recent common ancestor with birds. This kind of situation can arise whenever a particular lineages "diverges" sufficiently in a particular direction -- as birds did in adapting to their peculiar form of locomotion -- that we decide it should have a new name.

Not surprisingly (to the evolutionists) the proteins and DNA of crocodiles are more similar to those of birds than they are to those of snakes or lizards.

Another example concerns humans. Genetically, chimpanzees are actually more similar to humans than they are to their fellow pongids (great apes) gorillas.

In these crucial cases, the evidence conforms with common ancestry rather than typology, contrary to what would be expected if God created "types within types" (by non-evolutionary means).

[Aric2000]

Great, another Behe site.

woohoo, take me to the great ID'r in the sky.

[Aric2000]

Nice... very nice....

I learn something here every day.

Too cool, thanks.

[general_re]

Your implication that the term evolution carries the same sense in both cases (the evolution of the universe according to physical law, and the origin of species according to random variation and environmentally driven selection) commits the fallacy of equivocation.

Nicely done. Unfortunately, I pointed out exactly the same fallacy to that same poster a few days ago, and it bounced off without a dent. Expect a long-winded, yet surprisingly empty response...

[whattajoke]

you know what's funny about the whole Behe phenomenon? The same people who drool over his fantasies are the same one who accuse us of doing that over Darwin. That, and the fact that Behe didn't propose a single thing, but rather just writes mass market mish mash. But I suppose that doesn't matter.

[Junior]

Probably one of the best logic texts available, and quite readable to boot.

[Aric2000]

Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution and descent with modification.41 Yet, they have not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. Today, biologists have a new and growing theory of life's origin: intelligent design. As intelligent design theory matures and develops as a scientific theory, evolution may not be the "best" any longer, and the "design hypothesis" may once again be considered as a viable explanation for the origins of lifeforms on earth.



Don't ya just love this sort of stuff?

Hey this is ID, and even though scientists have refuted us relentlesly, and have disproved most of what we have claimed, because it cannot hold up to peer review, we are still gonna claim this, even though we don't have a leg to stand on, but that's OK, because the ones who believe us are not going to look for a refutation anyway.

[Aric2000]

Did G3K write that paragraph?

[general_re]

I always thought equivocation meant lying.

In a colloquial sense, it usually does. In the realm of philosophy, a fallacy of equivocation is when you rely on an inherent ambiguity in the definition of a word to "shade" the meaning and draw a conclusion that is probably suspect. If I were writing a textbook, I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better example of the fallacy of equivocation than that particular example. One might expect that a self-avowed phil-os-o-pher would avoid such elementary errors of logic, but there you go...

[Aric2000]

Of course it doesn't, that is why they are called religious zealots.

[Aric2000]

Faith is wonderful thing, no facts, no evidence, no nothing needed, just a little book that they say is the word of god, and BOOM, you got yourself a religion.

Ohh, maybe we can work on something like that, a collabaration, I bet we could make millions, and we could be NONprofit, so NO taxes.

WooHoo, let's do that!!

[whattajoke]

btw, been meaning to tell you... after reading one of your posts re your reverse "conversion," you might want to find Dan Barker's "losing faith in faith."

Something tells me you'll hurt your neck from nodding yes so much.

[Aric2000]

I will go find that, sounds interesting.

Thanks

[whattajoke]

I assure you, it is: http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif.html

[f.Christian]

Evolution is wonderful thing, no facts, no evidence, no nothing needed, just a big crock that you say is the word of man, and BOOM, you got yourself a religion // cult ... priests --- overlords !

[Right Wing Professor]

No, all this is is a link to some creationist web page. I asked for a specific case where genetic and morphological evidence conflict. Evidently you can't back that claim up with a cite. Too bad.

[Aric2000]

Yep, I gotta read that, no if's and's or but's about it.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[Aric2000]

It was a rather disapointing try wasn't it?

Well, he seems new, maybe he will do better next time.

Nah, never mind, forget I said that...

[Ichneumon]

You have got to be kidding! You presume to judge the mind of God?

Not nearly as much as the "intelligent design" folks do when they claim that something allegedly shows "evidence of design". Aren't *they* "presuming to judge the mind of God" and jumping to conclusions about how he might or might not want to do something? Or whether he would even care to at *all*?

You said, "'Designed' DNA would show significantly different features from evolved DNA."

Yes, and I stand by that statement, without needing to make any "presumptions about the mind of God" at all, nor even the presumption that a "god" was involved (as opposed to the possibility of, say, Xarg the highly advanced alien working on his creation-of-life doctorate project).

My response: Maybe if YOU designed it. But you didn't, and I think who did may understand it a tad better than anyone within creation itself.

You completely miss the point.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, though.

My argument is in no way predicated on any presumption about who/how/why design might/must happen. It's only based on the following obvious statement: Design is not constrained to the same highly restricted limits that evolution is.

In other words, no matter who's doing the designing, for whatever goal, the products of their design are wildly unlikely to fall *exactly* within the many and varied constraints that the results of evolution are. That is, unless the designer perversely took enormous care to make sure his designs, *exactly* mimicked *only* the sorts of results that evolution was going to produce, in every possible way (including time sequencing, etc.) -- my only presumption about an alleged designer's "mind" is that he's not intending to deceive us by "covering his tracks" via "faking" evolution-looking products.

Let's take a little trip through a thought-experiment:

Let's say you and I are walking through Yosemite Valley, and we find a large heap of boulders and rubble at the base of a towering rock cliff. I say, "my conclusion is these rocks broke loose from higher up that rock cliff and came crashing down to the valley floor through the natural forces of gravity and erosion (which loosened the rocks to start with)." You say, "I think God created these rocks in their current position in this piled-up shape because they were part of his choices for the Design of this valley."

So, how do we settle the disagreement? Even leaving aside the point that you seem to be "presuming the mind of God" by presuming that he even gives a flying fart about the configuration of this insignificant rockpile in the first place, I start by pointing out, "well, I've examined this rock pile and the cliff face and the surrounding ground in great detail, and I note that there is a freshly exposed spot high up on the cliff face, of the right size and shape to match the mass of rocks down here, and have even found some boulders which seem to exactly fit into the contour of the cliff face they appear to have separated from. Furthermore, the fragmentation and scattering of the rocks down here match very closely the predictions of equations which model how rocks tend to break when they impact at the velocity they would have been traveling if they had fallen from that height, plus there are scrape marks along the cliff wall consistent with falling rocks cascading down along the wall. And the amount of rock dust on the surrounding trees and ground matches very well what one would predict if a mass of rocks this large were to fall to here and scatter billowing dust outward from the point of impact. Plus detailed analysis of this rock pile shows it to be identical in composition to the part of the cliff face up at the point of presumed origin, and not with rock from the cliff farther down, or the original rock making up the valley floor. I also note that the apparently broken boulders show faces which appear fresh, not oxidized or weathered, contrary to their external surfaces, lending credence to the notion that old rocks fell here somewhat recently and broke when they landed, Etc. etc. etc. etc. In short, every examined fact about the rock pile's configuration, content, and all surrounding traces is entirely consistent with the evidence one would see if these rocks did, indeed, fall from up there and landed here. Therefore I conclude that that's what almost certainly happened."

You reply, "All well and good, but the Designer of this rock pile, in placing the these rocks Just So for his own purposes, could have chosen to pick rocks which happened to match the upper part of the cliff face, peeled off a layer of the upper cliff face such that it was fresh unweathered rock and was of a shape to fit the boulders down here, cracked the rocks similar to how they could have broken by a fall, scattered rock dust around, carefully treated certain rock faces so they would weather less than others, and so on, all for his own reasons which we can't fathom because He Works In Mysterious Ways. But the point is that he *could* have set up this rock pile in just this way, because placing and carving rocks and scattering dust is certainly within his power. Therefore this rockpile is consistent with my assertion that God purposely put them here this way, they didn't actually fall into place."

My reply is, "Okay, but since you admit we can't know the Mind of God, i.e. *why* he would do *anything* any given way, you have no reason to claim that he had any motive to place the rocks and modify the surrounding landscape in exactly *this* way versus any other. If he wanted a rock pile here for (pick any/all conceivable reasons), there are practically an infinite number of ways he could have done it which would turn out *not* to match *exactly* the results of a bunch of naturally fallen rocks. Don't you find it odd that if he indeed did personally design and place this rock heap, he'd do it *only* in ways that *exactly* mimic a natural rock fall, and which in *no* way, not even a single way, differs from the results of a natural rock fall? If he did it for his unknown purposes, he could just as likely have placed them in an arrow-straight line, or consisting of marble instead of granite, or without all the surrounding dust, or in a nice circle, or any of the billion other ways that might have fulfilled his intention (whatever it was) but clearly not exactly mimicked the results a natural rock slide. Unless you're going to "presume the mind of God" and argue that he did it to *fake us out* into thinking there was a natural rock fall when in fact it wasn't (and if he did, maybe we should believe what he clearly *wants* to make us believe...), why presume that God was involved in the placement of this rockpile at *all*? Why not just go with the most obvious -- it looks exactly like a natural event, therefore let's presume it is unless we learn something to the contrary? Furthermore, if *all* other rockpiles we find turn out to be similarly consistent with naturally produced rockpiles, by what argument do you cling to the notion that God is in the business of designing rock piles at all? Why would he *bother* doing so if the results all end up like they would if rockfalls and glacier displacements and so on were just left to do their usual thing unassisted? In short, why would an alleged 'designer' *always* produce results that gave the overwhelming impression of things that occurred naturally? Wouldn't you think that every so often he'd tire of those limitations and design something that drew from the more limitless possibilities of what he could do by using *all* his design options?"

You're now invited to provide the rebuttal, because I can't think of any words to provide for your side of the argument that don't sound lame at this point.

I design computer programs.

And you never limit yourself to *only* those styles of program design which could have been formed by a genetic algorithm, do you?

Thus my point.

Your programs show features that are clearly designed, by virtue of *not* being the sort of thing one would expect from an evolutionary product. For trivial examples, your programs contain comment lines (no evolutionary process would ever produce human-readable comment lines), and variables with names in English (no evolutionary process would exactly reproduce the English language.)

See what I mean?

The simpler, the more elegant. I think creation is a wonder in its utter simplicity/complexity combination.

Oh, please... I'm talking about identifiable features that are far more objective and specific than "it's simple" or "elegant".

For example, that link I gave you (did you read it?) notes that there are embedded chunks of viral DNA buried within our own DNA, from ancient infections in our ancestors which in a sense became "fossilized" in our own DNA and copied to subsequent generations. What's astounding is that there are such chunks where the exact slice of viral DNA appears in exactly the same spot in the DNA of species *across taxon lines. In other words, for example, there are endogenous retroviruses shared (and not shared) by various members of the primate family like this:

If humans and other primates *don't* share common ancestors, *why* do we share what appear to be inherited relics of past viral infections, which would be *astronomically* unlikely to occur in exactly the same DNA location if they were all acquired independently? *Why* does the pattern of how various examples are shared *exactly* match a cleanly nested "family tree" like the one above? *Why* are there *no* unexplainable counterexamples (for exaple, such a viral relic would blow an evolutionary origin theory if it were found in both, say, humans and gibbons but not other primates, because that would flatly contradict the inheritance implications of *other* found viral relics)? More to the point, why are they there *at all* if the primates were "separately created" by a designer? What conceivable (or even inconceivable) reason would he have to "fake us out" by inserting clear evidence of relics of infection inherited from a common ancestor if there really *was* no common ancestor? Why would he do it this way *thousands* of times, across most known species and biological family trees, in a way *always* consistent with evolution? And if the designer is in the habit of placing random viral pieces in our DNA for the Mysterious Ways excuse (oops, I mean "reason"), then *why* would he *never* insert them in a way that's inconsistent with a common ancestor model? Why does he constrain himself so? *Why* would he also do this "fakeout" in a way that's consistent with the fossil record? Why would similar DNA evidence clearly match in every way family trees across very wide-ranging groups of living things:

And why would *that* match the fossil, chemical, geographic, and other DNA evidence for evolution so well also? Why wouldn't he *ever* do things some non-evolutionary way, since he's free to follow his design desires any destination he chooses?

Why does the alleged designer never design things inconsistent with an evolutionary origin?

And if he's trying so hard to make his handiwork *look* like evolution from common ancestors, maybe we should believe what he's trying to convince us happened.

Another thing. Lots of us have our favorite web sites supporting our opinion on both sides. There garbage on both sides as well. I haven't read ALL of them. But I haven't read the entire tax code either. I still know I have to pay my taxes.

Um, okay. Is this your excuse for not reading the arguments and evidence I linked for you which impinge directly on your own arguments?

Evolution (a general term if ever there was one) is a great theory. I think it is an interesting theory. My guess is that parts of some versions of it are ultimately right on, especially when dealing with micro-evolution.

There's also a huge amount of evidence for common ancestry and other "macroevolutionary" results.

But to embrace the theory as FACT is, well, really bad science.

It would be if that's what we were doing, but it's not. We're quite clear on the distinction between which parts are fact and which parts are theory.

You mention matching predictions. Ptolomy's theory matched predictions - to a point - and it turned out to be utterly wrong from the very beginning (earth centered universe).

The point, though, is that *very* early on, they noticed things which *didn't* fit the theory.

Similarly, if life on earth were designed instead of evolved, there would be *countless* observations which wouldn't fit at *all* into an evolutionary framework. But there aren't.

It helps also if you change your predictions as new information surfaces. And in some cases, that IS what's going on with evolution theory.

Indeed. Let me know when the "intelligent design" side modifies their position.

The real problem with arguing against evidence for intelligent design and why it's not fair for me to argue too much is that just as evolution can try to solve its problems by throwing more time into the mix,

This is a gross misrepresentation of how evolution "solves its problems".

ID people can argue that you cannot second guess a creator. Anything discovered can be arguably the way He designed it,

To the point of perversity, yes. Sooner or later, the argument that "sure, all this matches evolution, but maybe God just wants to make it look that way" starts to sound pretty silly. The only way that ID can be taken seriously as a valid theory is if it ever drops the "maybe God *wants* it that way, we dunno" foundation and starts to find things that are clearly and unambiguously outside the realm of what could have occurred naturally. If things really *were* designed and created, there should have been *thousands* of clear examples by now. But there are not. And no, Behe's examples are at best in the "could be argued either way" category, so don't bore me with those and I won't bore you with the rebuttals.

It's like adding a bolt to a piece of metal that doesn't hold anything together. It's just there, to confuse those who MUST DISCOVER it's original function. It's function is to keep them buisy for the creator to get a good laugh.

Ah, well then, you *do* presume to know the Mind of God after all...

You need to lighten up. The theory is not worthy to be RELIGIOUSLY defended...

I don't defend it religiously. I defend it scientifically.

[Right Wing Professor]

For example, that link I gave you (did you read it?

I just did. I really wasn't aware of the retrotransposon story. Fascinating.

[Not Insane]

--I don't defend it religiously. I defend it scientifically.--

You defend that it is THE ipso facto scientific explanation. And you do it with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR, for it doesn't warrant it. It is, after all, just a theory.

I skimmed your response and I must say this: It makes a point with which I think there is plenty of argument for and against.

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post. I just don't have the time nor inclination to do so in this forum. You've ratcheted up the time commitment too high. You take the pot, not because you have a winning hand, but because I didn't bring enough money (time) to call your last raise.

Don't spend it all in one place.

It was fun!

BTW, you're putting God in a box. He's bigger than that, and I'm not talking about the origin of species - that is just a fun thing to discuss. It is not relevant to the reality that matters.

[Right Wing Professor]

You defend that it is THE ipso facto scientific explanation. And you do it with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR, for it doesn't warrant it. It is, after all, just a theory.

He's defending science, perhaps the crowning human achievement, against attack from pre-Enlightenment religious fundamentalism. That's an absolutely essential fight. I, for one, am grateful he's willing to put in the time necessary for this defense.

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post.

The problem isn't the quantity, but the quality.

[Aric2000]

I was in the middle of writing this huge post to explain what you just said in that nice short one, but then decided to forget it, glad I did.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post. I just don't have the time nor inclination to do so in this forum.

You don't have the time to refute all of it, so you won't refute any of it. You just want us to take it on faith that it's all refutable.

Okay.

[Not Insane]

--He's defending science, perhaps the crowning human achievement, against attack from pre-Enlightenment religious fundamentalism. That's an absolutely essential fight. I, for one, am grateful he's willing to put in the time necessary for this defense.--

And I applaud that. It is when the theory itself is defended with the same fervor that I get a little concerned.

--The problem isn't the quantity, but the quality.--

There's plenty on both sides, for those with open minds to observe.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Come on, guys, let's get this thread over 1000!

[f.Christian]

Don't forget the evoloon (( know it all )) non thinking pledge !

[Aric2000]

Creationists with an open mind.

What planet do you live on?

[Not Insane]

--You just want us to take it on faith that it's all refutable.--

Nope. I just don't have the time. I remember people reeling against someone by the name of Medved because of his voluminous posts over and over again, some of it very convincing. I agreed with these people. This isn't the place for that - from either side. When I see a post which has been cut and pasted (sometimes my own) that encumpass more than a page on my screen, I glaze over. I go to other sites for that.

Have a nice weekend folks. It looks like I'm gonna have to ride my bicycle home in a thunderstorm.

This has been a fun discussion. Steel sharpens steel!

[Lurking Libertarian]

Stay dry, and may the wind be at your back.

[ALS]

[Right Wing Professor]

I thought ALS only damaged the peripheral neurons?

[Nebullis]

In these crucial cases, the evidence conforms with common ancestry rather than typology,...

Rather, common ancestry is supported by morphological (typological) genetic, and temporal evidence.

It's actually well-known that there is considerable incongruence between various morphological trees and genetic trees. And genetic trees don't always resolve an ancestral relationship either because the different loci within the same species often show incongruence. 100% congruence is rarely found.

There are several reasons for this. Homoplasy and recombination make resolution sometimes very difficult. Plus, the correspondence between genotype and phenotype is rarely one to one. What's more, tree construction is based on data sets with varying ratios of signal to noise. One can imagine that morphological data sets are incomplete and very noisy, yet, the classic trees were constructed with them.

There are some examples where the genetic data has turned the morphological relationships completely on their heads.

Here are a just few references out of the many hits on a search for discordance/incongruence-morphological-genetic/phylogenetic incongruence, etc.

Syst Biol 1999 Dec;48(4):683-714

Data set incongruence and correlated character evolution: an example of functional convergence in the hind-limbs of stifftail diving ducks.
McCracken KG, Harshman J, McClellan DA, Afton AD.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Oct 11;91(21):9861-5.

Molecules vs. morphology in avian evolution: the case of the "pelecaniform" birds.
Hedges SB, Sibley CG.

To be sure, this doesn't turn common ancestry on its head, but it is important to remember that in biology, things are never very clean.

[Aric2000]

Not in his case, the all the neurons are damaged.

[Aric2000]

and 1000, yes