What exactly is ID?

Do you have any siblings. If you do, what mechanism is responsible for your shared characteristics? Shared ancestry, is it not?Do you really think that common ancestry is not possible? Really? This is why ID is not scientific. Nothing can falsify it. 2 billion different species with no shared characteristics would also be consistent with magical poofing. A non-nested hierarchy would be consistent with magical poofing. Anything and everything is consistent with magical poofing.This is not so with evolution. The theory of evolution (a scientific theory) makes a risky prediction. It predicts that a nested hierarchy should exist among species that only participate in vertical genetic transfer (which is the case for metazoans). What do we see at the genetic level? An overwhelming signal for a nested hierarchy. How in the world do you think people determine that Rolex's are fakes? Or how old a pocket watch is? From these very things. It's not only possible it is done all of the time.Secondly, if I put two pocket watches in a box and come back 9 months later are there three pocket watches? No, there isn't. Watches don't reproduce. Life does. A designer could put feathers on a bat. There is nothing stopping it from happening. And yet, there is no feathered bats. Instead we see adaptations of a mammalian body type for flight without anything informing these adaptations from the bird lineage. Again and again we see this pattern. There is no reason that we should see a nested hierarchy in metazoans if ID is true. It is the only pattern that evolution can produce with a lack of horizontal gene transfer. Not for organisms that participate in HGT, no it doesn't. However, there is very little to no HGT observed among metazoans, and sure enough we see an overwhelming signal that is consistent with a nested hierarchy.Using ID, can you explain why we don't see birds with three middle ear bones? Why we don't see mammals with feathers? Why we don't see whales with gills? Why we don't see penguins with hair? How does ID explain why we see one pattern out of the billions that are possible?

quote:

---

Yet ANOTHER example of you not knowing what you are talking about. Geez, dude. This is getting bad.

​

Scissors cut from both sides, for short distances and generally straight. Knives cut from one side and can swerve as they slice the page.

​

Forensics can show whether or not it was scissors of a knife, and if it's an older pair of scissors, they can match the scissors to the cut.

​

You lose. AGAIN.

---

What if a guy took two knives, and cut the paper from both sides? It would look like it was done with scissors. But than again, you are totally missing the point.The point is that you have no design detection method. You only have a design detection method. Which i so-so. I'll elaborate on that later on.

quote:

---

Seriously? You couldn't pick a WORSE example. I have a degree in Archaeology and flintnap as a hobby.

​

You can ABSOLUTELY distinguish between an arrowhead and an arrowhead "shaped" rock.

​

Bifacial flaking does not occur in nature. It BARELY occurs when people try to do it. It's TRICKY as hell.

​

MULTIPLE bifacial flakes running down the length of a flint core requires hours of precision work. Work for which...

​

...wait for it...

​

WE HAVE A MECHANISM!!!

---

You are missing the point again. How do you know that what you are seeing is actually a product of design, and not chance. How do you know that what you are seeing, in this case bifacial flaking, is actually not just a product of natural forces? It may just look like bifacial flaking. But in reality it's just a product of wind and erosion over a long period of time.Let me explain to you why your method is not a method of design detection, but a method of mechanism detection.You see, your method already presuposes design. It can not detect it. It has to first presuppose design, and than, it moves on, to infer the mechanism by which the said design was implemented. The reason why your method can not infer design is because it already depends on design being there. Your method has no way of telling apart designed things, from things that were made by undirected natural forces, which just look like designed.Here is an example. I say that a cell is like a computer. I say that because it is an information processing machinery. Than from that, I infer design. You than come along, and say that this is false. The reason is, that the cell is actually not liek a computer, and is not an information processing machinery. it just LOOKS like it. You claim that it has been modeled by evolution over long periods of time, therefore, it's not designed, but only looks designed.Fine. But than, I turn around, and say. Well, you see, the Rosetta stone, is not designed also. It has been modeled by natural forces, liek wind, water, erosion, over time. And it just LOOKS like it has been designed. So it's not really designed. So you can't say that since you knwo that chiseled rocks are human made, that Rosetta stoneis also. Because it's not designed in the first place. It just looks like it's been designed. It just looks like it has been chiseled. So there is not design to infer in the first place.So your method of detecting design by knowing the mechanism of design is flawed, precisely becasue you can't tell apart objects that are designed from those that just seem designed in a particualr way. If the Rosetta stone was designed, you could apply your method to infer what mechanism was used. But not before you actually know if it was designed or not. And you dont' know. Becasue your method does not tell yout hat. As I said before, your method presupposes design.

quote:

---

That may be your "POINT" but your __CLAIM__ is that NO ONE NEEDS TO KNOW HOW SOMETHING WORKS IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE DESIGNED.

​

And _THAT_ is ABSOLUTELY false.

​

Every single example you have given has been created by PEOPLE who KNOW what they are creating and are using mechanisms which can be reproduced.

​

Just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean THEY are ignorant.

---

But even before I knew anything about cars, or computers, I knew they were designed. So my argument stands. I don't have to know anything about them to know they are designed. And I'm the one doing the design detection, not t he people who made them. They are irrelevant in the rpoces of design detection becasue they are the designer. The rpocess of design detection is done by those who are ignorant of how the object in question came about. Not by those who do know. What would be the point of infering design if you already know the object is designed?

quote:

---

No. The mechanism of watch creation, even watch piece creation is OBSERVABLE. It can be (and is) recreated on a regular basis.

---

But if you don't know the mechanism, you can still infer design. It doesn't matter if it's observable or not. If you don't know the mechanism precisely, you simply do not know it. Yet you can still infer design.

quote:

---

The same is NOT true for Jew Wizard Jew Beams. They have _NEVER_ been observed. They have _NEVER_ be recreated.

​

You are just PRETENDING that they exist to explain away shit you are too lazy to learn.

​

You're entire argument so far is this:

​

"Cars, watches, random notes and arrowheads were all created by a magical Jewish Wizard using Jew Beams because I, Smooth Operator, wasn't there when it happened."

​

That's, as Sarah Pallin would say, "FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!"

---

It's obvious to anyone here that this is not my argument, and never was...

quote:

---

FUCKING RETARDED.

---

Explain why.

quote:

---

But if ID is nothing more than design detection then it has no explanatory power. How can it replace evolution if it can't explain everything that evolution already explains? It would be like trying to replace your automobile with a bicycle.

---

It would be like math replacing biology. Truly meaningless. That is why ID is not, has never, and will never replace evolution. It does not even try to replace evolution, because it can't. It's not supposed to.ID is not even trying to expalin all that evolution is supposed to explain. ID is a science of design detection and is distinct from the theory of evolution which it does not try to replace. Where you came up witht he idea that ID is trying to repalce evolution is beyond me.Evolution is about explaining the diversity of life we see today. ID is about design detection. These are two totally different fields of inquery.

quote:

---

But okay, if that's what ID actually is, design detection, then I guess the question asked by this long thread has finally been answered. Now if only ID could actually *do* design detection.

---

I think it can quite well.

quote:

---

And an unknown number plus one minus one plus an unknown number is an unknown number.

---

Yet I specifically said that I'm only talking about known functions.

quote:

---

I only agree that the number 10^20 is Dembski's estimate of the specificational resources.

---

Than explain to me, why the hell did Dembski say this:

quote:

---

Recall the following description of the bacterial flagellum given in section 6: bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller. This description corresponds to a pattern T. Moreover, given a natural language (English) lexicon with 100,000 (= 105) basic concepts (which is supremely generous given that no English speaker is known to have so extensive a basic vocabulary), we estimated the complexity of this pattern at approximately ϕ
S(T) = 1020

---

It CLEARLY, and in PLAIN ENGLISH says that bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" is the pattern, and that it's complexity is 10^20. Which part do you not understand quite well? Do you want me to call Dembski on the phone to approve of this or something!? What else do you want?And s for specificational resources:

quote:

---

For a less artificial example of specificational resources in action, imagine a dictionary of 100,000 (= 105) basic concepts. There are then 105 1-level concepts, 1010 2-level concepts, 1015 3-level concepts, and so on. If bidirectional, rotary, motor-driven, and propeller are basic concepts, then the molecular machine known as the bacterial flagellum can be characterized as a 4-level concept of the form bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller. Now, there are approximately N = 1020 concepts of level 4 or less, which therefore constitute the specificational resources relevant to characterizing the bacterial flagellum.

---

Since bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller consists of 4 parts, whose individual probability is 10^5, multiplying that up leads us to 10^20. This is as previously stated teh complexity of teh pattern. And int eh same time the relevant specificational resources for specifying the pattern in question. So it's both, just as I've been saying all along.

quote:

---

No, I don't agree because the "complexity" is produced from a probability calculation and we don't know what the results of the two calculations would be. It is likely that the one needing more proteins would be less probable, but it isn't certain.

---

Explain the logic behind saying that getting 6 with one die is less complex than getting 1.000.000 6s with 1.000.000 dice. And than in turn sayignt that getting a 50 protein flagellum is NOT less complex than getting a 1.000.000 protein flagellum.

quote:

---

He didn't calculate the correct probability. Or even anything resembling the correct probability. That's what he did wrong.

---

Why? What's wrong with the calculation found in NFL?

quote:

---

But do you understand that since both wil fit the pattern we need the probability of getting either of them ? Or any other flagellum.

---

No we do not. We need only one. In this case the 50 protein one. If we were interested in the million protein one, we would calculate only his probability.Using your logic, tell me, how the hell you you use this formula 10^120 ϕ S(T)P(T|H) < 1/2? What numbers go where?

quote:

---

The "noise" in the quote is not the "noise" of genetic drift that we were talking about earlier.

---

quote:

---

The "noise" in the quote is not the "noise" of genetic drift that we were talking about earlier.

---

It doesn't matter which noise it is. It's still noise and it's not averaging out. Any noise is bad. Some will scale with fitness some will not. And the noise that is not scaling increases genetic entropy.

quote:

---

Except that you DIDN'T allow them to offset the fitness loss. Which they do.

---

They do offset it! But by so little it's not even measureable. And certainly not enough to stop genetic entropy. Yes, you can slow it down, I've been sayign it all along. But you can't stop it.Take a look at this article. It specifically talks about large sexually reproducing organisms. Which as you can see are also in danger of mutational meltdown. Note however that the authors are only concerned with reproductive fitness. They do not take into account that genetic entropy is building up becasue of deterioration of genetic information. They are only concerned with reproductive fitness itself. Yet, they show that large populations can also go extinct.

quote:

---

When a new mdividual is formed (independently of the reproduction process) it inherits harmful iuutations. Moreover, new mutations are acquired even in the genetic code formation, most of them deleterious ones. This might lead to a time decay in the mean fitness of the whole population that, for long enough time, would produce the extinction of the species.

---

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/...53/PDF/ajp-jp1v5p1501.pdf

quote:

---

It helps me because it shows that the article agrees exactly with what I said. Mutational load is only a problem with a low effective population size.

---

Where does it say that?

quote:

---

You obviously don't know much about reproductive biology. Sexually reproducing species get only HALF the genome of each parent.

---

I KNOW! The point is that while reporducing, the parents DO NOT pick and choose which nucleotides they will pass on to their offspring! They send everything. The whole genome. And after that, the offspring is the mix of those two genomes. Therefore, natural selection selects on the level of the genome. Not on the level of the single nucleotide. Which means that even if a certain individual has beneficial mutations, the deleterious that he might also have, go right to the offspring thogether with the beneficial ones. Natural seelction can not select out individual deleterious nucleotides.

quote:

---

Of course, since you have no sensible measure of "genetic information" any such statement is pure speculation.

---

Exacept that CSI is a fine measure. The only problem is that you don't get it. Anyone who claims that 50 protein flagellum is the same in complexity as a 1.000.000 protein falgellum can't understand CSI, nor Shannon information for that matter. Even in Shannon information those two are distinct.

Don't bother to use analogies from archaeology. You have shown that you never studied archaeology and you are making massive errors.Bifacial flaking has been well studied in archaeology and neither wind nor erosion can do flaking, let alone bifacial flaking. You're flunking Archaeology 101 on a regular basis here.One of my professors in graduate school had a room full of rocks collected from streams and other places where rocks can come into contact with one another. We spent hours studying those, and learning to distinguish between natural and man-made flaking patterns.Bifacial flaking is almost never found in nature, and what may be found is the simplest form.Find some other field from which to generate your incorrect analogies.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The wedge strategy document pretty much proves it. Has the method been used on anything except for the flagellum? Ever? At all?

How was this calculation made? More importantly, why limit this to a "bidirectional motor-driven propeller"? The function is motility. His calculations need to include all protein-protein interactions that could have led to a motility function. They pass on their entire genome? Really? You might want to think about that for a second. In sexually reproducing species only half the genome is passed on which means that a mixture of alleles is passed on. Therefore, different children from the same parents will have a different mixture of alleles.Secondly, there are very good examples of a single nucleotide difference being selected for. The hemoglobin S allele is a perfect example. In the heterozygous state it confers malarial resistance. In the homozygous state it causins sickling of the RBC's. Therefore, it has both beneficial and detrimental attributes depending on the environment. In environments with endemic malaria the beneficial attributes in the heterozygous state outweigh it's detrimental attributes in the homozygous state. The exact opposite occurs in environments without endemic malaria. So what do we see when we look at the geographic distribution of the hemoglobin S allele and endemic malaria? They match. Populations in areas with endemic malaria have many more individuals with the allele than populations in areas without endemic malaria. This completely falsifies your claim.

quote:

---

Do you have any siblings. If you do, what mechanism is responsible for your shared characteristics? Shared ancestry, is it not?

​

Do you really think that common ancestry is not possible? Really?

---

I'm talking about universal common ancestry. You know, the common ancestry of all life on Earth. You do know that bears and aligators do not and can not reproduce?

quote:

---

This is why ID is not scientific. Nothing can falsify it. 2 billion different species with no shared characteristics would also be consistent with magical poofing. A non-nested hierarchy would be consistent with magical poofing. Anything and everything is consistent with magical poofing.

---

This is where youa re wrong on 2 parts.1.) ID can be falsified. If an event is shown to be a producd of eiterh a natural law or chance, than ID is falsified.2.) ID has nothing to do with "poofing", whatever that is.

quote:

---

This is not so with evolution. The theory of evolution (a scientific theory) makes a risky prediction. It predicts that a nested hierarchy should exist among species that only participate in vertical genetic transfer (which is the case for metazoans). What do we see at the genetic level? An overwhelming signal for a nested hierarchy.

---

Except where we do not see a nested hierarchy. Did you read the article I quoted in my previosu post? A lot, and I do mean, a lot of speies do not fit the tree of life model you think they do. On the other had, I already told you, being consistent with something doesn't imply that this something is the cause.

quote:

---

How in the world do you think people determine that Rolex's are fakes? Or how old a pocket watch is? From these very things. It's not only possible it is done all of the time.

---

But it does not detect design. It presupposes design in the first palce. You already know a ROlex is designed. Now you just want to find out the mechanism.

quote:

---

Secondly, if I put two pocket watches in a box and come back 9 months later are there three pocket watches? No, there isn't. Watches don't reproduce. Life does.

---

If you put random atoms in that very same box, will they reproduce? No they won't. So why would you think a long time ago some atoms did just that and formed first life? But that's besides the point. How does reproduction have anyhting to do with design detection in the first place?

quote:

---

A designer could put feathers on a bat. There is nothing stopping it from happening. And yet, there is no feathered bats.

---

I know, why should there be?

quote:

---

Instead we see adaptations of a mammalian body type for flight without anything informing these adaptations from the bird lineage.

---

No you do not. You simply see, mammalian bodies that are able to fly. You have no idea of how that came about.

quote:

---

Again and again we see this pattern. There is no reason that we should see a nested hierarchy in metazoans if ID is true.

---

Except if it was designed that way.

quote:

---

It is the only pattern that evolution can produce with a lack of horizontal gene transfer.

---

You didn't even show that evolution is capeable of producing that in the first place! You can't ascribe an event to a cause that you do not know can even produce that cause.

quote:

---

Not for organisms that participate in HGT, no it doesn't. However, there is very little to no HGT observed among metazoans, and sure enough we see an overwhelming signal that is consistent with a nested hierarchy.

---

But those animals you speak of were supposed to have evolved from those earlier that did participate in a lot of HGT. So if evolution was true, the later ones should obviously not be forming a nested hierarchy.Furhtermore, the idea that HGT is responsible for the noncorrelated branches is not enough. Simply because even the higher taxa is shown to not conform to a tree of life as envisioned if it was a slow gradual descent.

quote:

---

Hillis (and others) may claim that this problem is only encountered when one tries to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships of microorganisms, such as bacteria, which can swap genes through a process called horizontal gene transfer, thereby muddying any phylogenetic signal. But this objection doesn’t hold water because the tree of life is challenged even among higher organisms where such gene-swapping does not take place. As the article explains:

​

Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirtsalso known as tunicatesare lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another, Syvanen says.

---

A Primer on the Tree of Life | Discovery Institute

quote:

---

Using ID, can you explain why we don't see birds with three middle ear bones? Why we don't see mammals with feathers? Why we don't see whales with gills? Why we don't see penguins with hair? How does ID explain why we see one pattern out of the billions that are possible?

---

That's not what ID is about. But nevertheless. The explanation is simple. They were not designed that way. But can you tell me what exactly would falsify evolution? What animal, and which characteristics would falsify common descent?

Has it ever even been used on the flagellum? I've never seen ID's method of design detection applied to anything. The bacterial flagellum, blood clotting and the eye, among others, have been offered as examples of design, but I've never seen any actual design detection technique applied.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

quote:

---

How was this calculation made? More importantly, why limit this to a "bidirectional motor-driven propeller"? The function is motility. His calculations need to include all protein-protein interactions that could have led to a motility function.

---

The calculation can be found in the NFL. It doesn't matter what the function is. What matters is the pattern. Including all the possible patterns that would lead to motility is useless. We are trying to detect if a certain pattern was designed.

quote:

---

They pass on their entire genome? Really? You might want to think about that for a second. In sexually reproducing species only half the genome is passed on which means that a mixture of alleles is passed on. Therefore, different children from the same parents will have a different mixture of alleles.

---

Does the sperm, or does it not, contain the full genome fo the father? Regardless of how the gebnomes will later on mix.

quote:

---

Secondly, there are very good examples of a single nucleotide difference being selected for. The hemoglobin S allele is a perfect example. In the heterozygous state it confers malarial resistance. In the homozygous state it causins sickling of the RBC's. Therefore, it has both beneficial and detrimental attributes depending on the environment. In environments with endemic malaria the beneficial attributes in the heterozygous state outweigh it's detrimental attributes in the homozygous state. The exact opposite occurs in environments without endemic malaria. So what do we see when we look at the geographic distribution of the hemoglobin S allele and endemic malaria? They match. Populations in areas with endemic malaria have many more individuals with the allele than populations in areas without endemic malaria. This completely falsifies your claim.

---

And thus, you painfully missed my whole point. Natural selection did not pick the organism on the level of that nucleotide. It picked teh organims on the level of the whole genome. It just so happened that the whole genome was fit enough to get selected. There are lot's of other mutations it that very same genome. Some are beenficial, soem are not. On average, and overall it is more fit than the others in it's population, that is why it got selected. But natural selection did not select it based on that single nucleotide. If it did, why did all the other deleterious mutations get passed on also in that same organism?

Common Ancestry says nothing about bears and aligators reproducing with each other. Which species, specifically, don't fit in a nested hierarchy?

Taq, you've got a very long section that is just a very long *UNQUOTED* excerpt from SO's post, or maybe multiple posts. It begins with "[qs]That's not what...". Please fix. --AdminYou do know that chihuahuas and great danes can not reproduce.And you never demonstrated why common ancestry is impossible, other than to just assert it. We do observe that common ancestry produces shared characteristics. We observe that all life shares arbitrary characteristics, such as tRNA's. 1) Since new information is produced by mutations, and mutations occur by chance, then ID is falsified.2) ID has always been about magical poofing. And in those species we see horizontal genetic transfer. In species where we do not observe HGT we observe a nested hierarchy, exactly as we would expect. This applies to the vast majority of metazoans. You have just rejected your own potential falsification. We observe natural processes producing a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy in life. Once HGT stops there will be a nested hierarchy. [qs]That's not what ID is about. But nevertheless. The explanation is simple. They were not designed that way. But can you tell me what exactly would falsify evolution? What animal, and which characteristics would falsify common descent?

quote:

---

Do you have any siblings. If you do, what mechanism is responsible for your shared characteristics? Shared ancestry, is it not?
Do you really think that common ancestry is not possible? Really?

---

I'm talking about universal common ancestry. You know, the common ancestry of all life on Earth. You do know that bears and aligators do not and can not reproduce?

quote:

---

This is why ID is not scientific. Nothing can falsify it. 2 billion different species with no shared characteristics would also be consistent with magical poofing. A non-nested hierarchy would be consistent with magical poofing. Anything and everything is consistent with magical poofing.

---

This is where youa re wrong on 2 parts.1.) ID can be falsified. If an event is shown to be a producd of eiterh a natural law or chance, than ID is falsified.2.) ID has nothing to do with "poofing", whatever that is.

quote:

---

This is not so with evolution. The theory of evolution (a scientific theory) makes a risky prediction. It predicts that a nested hierarchy should exist among species that only participate in vertical genetic transfer (which is the case for metazoans). What do we see at the genetic level? An overwhelming signal for a nested hierarchy.

---

Except where we do not see a nested hierarchy. Did you read the article I quoted in my previosu post? A lot, and I do mean, a lot of speies do not fit the tree of life model you think they do. On the other had, I already told you, being consistent with something doesn't imply that this something is the cause.

quote:

---

How in the world do you think people determine that Rolex's are fakes? Or how old a pocket watch is? From these very things. It's not only possible it is done all of the time.

---

But it does not detect design. It presupposes design in the first palce. You already know a ROlex is designed. Now you just want to find out the mechanism.

quote:

---

Secondly, if I put two pocket watches in a box and come back 9 months later are there three pocket watches? No, there isn't. Watches don't reproduce. Life does.

---

If you put random atoms in that very same box, will they reproduce? No they won't. So why would you think a long time ago some atoms did just that and formed first life? But that's besides the point. How does reproduction have anyhting to do with design detection in the first place?

quote:

---

A designer could put feathers on a bat. There is nothing stopping it from happening. And yet, there is no feathered bats.

---

I know, why should there be?

quote:

---

Instead we see adaptations of a mammalian body type for flight without anything informing these adaptations from the bird lineage.

---

No you do not. You simply see, mammalian bodies that are able to fly. You have no idea of how that came about.

quote:

---

Again and again we see this pattern. There is no reason that we should see a nested hierarchy in metazoans if ID is true.

---

Except if it was designed that way.

quote:

---

It is the only pattern that evolution can produce with a lack of horizontal gene transfer.

---

You didn't even show that evolution is capeable of producing that in the first place! You can't ascribe an event to a cause that you do not know can even produce that cause.

quote:

---

Not for organisms that participate in HGT, no it doesn't. However, there is very little to no HGT observed among metazoans, and sure enough we see an overwhelming signal that is consistent with a nested hierarchy.

---

But those animals you speak of were supposed to have evolved from those earlier that did participate in a lot of HGT. So if evolution was true, the later ones should obviously not be forming a nested hierarchy.Furhtermore, the idea that HGT is responsible for the noncorrelated branches is not enough. Simply because even the higher taxa is shown to not conform to a tree of life as envisioned if it was a slow gradual descent.

quote:

---

Hillis (and others) may claim that this problem is only encountered when one tries to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships of microorganisms, such as bacteria, which can swap genes through a process called horizontal gene transfer, thereby muddying any phylogenetic signal. But this objection doesn’t hold water because the tree of life is challenged even among higher organisms where such gene-swapping does not take place. As the article explains:

​

Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirtsalso known as tunicatesare lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another, Syvanen says.

---

A Primer on the Tree of Life | Discovery Institute

quote:

---

That's not what ID is about. But nevertheless. The explanation is simple. They were not designed that way. But can you tell me what exactly would falsify evolution? What animal, and which characteristics would falsify common descent?

---

Why weren't birds designed with three middle ear bones? Why weren't bats designed with feathers? What was preventing this designer from swapping design units between different vertebrate species? Why is the pattern of homology exactly what we would expect to see from evolutionary events?An animal, living or fossilized, that would falsify evolution would be an animal with a single lower jaw bone, three middle ear bones, and feathers. Another would be an animal with gills and hair. What was stopping this supposed designer from producing these animals?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Request fix.

So how many possible patterns are there and how was that determined?Frankly, I don't see how such a calculation can be done since it is nearly impossible to know which combinations of which protein sequences will result in any type of motility system. No, it contains half the father's genome. It's a haploid cell. Get thee to a biology book and learn about meiosis. Then please explain why the map of a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) matches so perfectly with the map of malaria distribution.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No, you are. You are constantly citing example of things that _YOU_ don't understand but which OTHER PEOPLE DO understand.No, two knives are not going to make the same cut as a pair of scissors. We know this because we have access to knives, paper and scissors and we can run tests on these different kinds of MECHANISMS.You _DON'T_ have access to Jew Magic, therefore you can not run tests on Jew Magic, therefore you can not determine if something was or was not created by Jew Magic. Because _AGAIN_ we KNOW the mechanism of wind and we know the mechanism of erosion. We also KNOW the mechanism of flintnapping.We can look at the RESULTS and determine CONCLUSIVELY the mechanism which was used to CREATE those results.YOU are claiming that you can look at the RESULTS and conclude things WITHOUT A MECHANISM. Which is _IMPOSSIBLE_!You CAN NOT determine that something was made unless you can determine HOW something is made. So, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based on a lie.You KNOW this is a lie.
I KNOW this is a lie.
Everyone reading this thread KNOWS this is a lie.Who EXACTLY are you trying to convince?!When you are __LYING__ it means that EVEN YOU don't believe the bullshit you are selling.If you ACTUALLY believed it, you WOULDN'T NEED TO LIE. The problem is that the rest of the world isn't nearly as stupid as you are. We do in fact understand HOW things are made.Just because YOU can't put a peanut butter and jelly sandwich together doesn't make it "Jew Magic!"

Gday Brad's point seems to be -
If evolution is not true, then he doesn't have to explain ANYTHING.And, he does believe evolution is not true, so therefore he doesn't have to explain anything because ID has automatically won because evolution is not true.The idea that one should use ID to EXPLAIN the observations seems foreign to IDists.Brad, please -
the idea is to see whose EXPLANATION is the best (ID explanation or Evo explanation) - in this case, the best explanation for the chronological sequence of skulls shown in that photo.We know what the evolutionary explanation is,
now we are hoping to hear from an IDist what the ID explanation is,
for this chronological sequence of skulls that we observe in nature.Will you tell us please ?K.