Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

As I see it, "intelligent design" is just another way of saying "theistic evolution". And apparently the "design" is God doing some genetic engineering (aka guiding evolution to some degree). Now, the question is, how does one tell the difference between a Godly genetic tweak and a non-Godly random mutation?As I recall, Michael Behe (one of the big guns of "intelligent design") is a big believer in the bulk of mainstream biological evolutionary theory. He just thinks that God had his fingers in the operation in some subtle way.Bottom line - "Design" is at best an undetected and probably undetectable detail in standard biological evolutionary theory.God, the genetic engineer (or something like that).MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Fix typo.

First, your response is irrelevant to the question at hand. The issue is what the supposed progression of skulls tells us as to the process for how they got that way. And the answer is "Nothing". Any plausible process could be the reason, whether that is mutation+natural selection, some other natural process, or ID (despite how you may feel about it).Secondly, as to published research and evidence for ID, you appear to be quite unaware. There is quite a lot of research a out there (including peer-reviewed papers), as well as a number of books, websites, talks, etc. One was linked in the first post of this thread. More recently, there was a major mathematical paper released - http://bio-complexity.org/.../main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.4Thirdly, you now seem to be using a more restricted definition of "evolution". I guess it is more than just "Evolution is change from generation to generation".Generally, evolution will have one of the following definitions. Of course, this list is not exhaustive and context does matter: ID has no issue with definitions 1-4, is somewhat agnostic on 5, and rejects the validity of 6. I suspect you are meaning 5 or 6.

quote:

---

Secondly, as to published research and evidence for ID, you appear to be quite unaware. There is quite a lot of research a out there (including peer-reviewed papers), as well as a number of books, websites, talks, etc.

---

There really isn’t that much compared to the output of evolutionary science. Their vanity journal only publishes a few papers a year.

quote:

---

One was linked in the first post of this thread. More recently, there was a major mathematical paper released

---

In their vanity journal. And what I can see of it doesn’t look promising. Axe’s paper is pretty useless for supporting ID, too.

Creationists don't disagree with evolution because of definitions or facts or logic. They disagree because they're anti-science. You may be too young to remember but creationists used to deny microevolution. I've even heard creationists say that dinosaurs never existed. They've been in headlong retreat from reality for decades and it doesn't look like they'll ever run out of ways to deny science.

The amount is kinda irrelevant. All that really matters is whether it is true or not.
Aside from that, there are papers being released just about every week that by implication are more supportive of the ID perspective than the Darwinian one, without directly mentioning either.
ID itself is an idea, and thus doesnt have a "journal' of its own, any more than "evolution" has its own journal. If though you are referring to the Discovery Institute having its own journal, it does but that is irrelevant. ID topics are not only published there, as the Axe paper referenced in the first comment are. The Axe paper is not in the "vanity" journal.
And how can you say the Axe paper is useless?

I normally would not consider myself a "Creationist", but I guess that depends on your definition. I've found that the use of the term is usually an epitaph, and persons throwing it around have no consistency in the meaning.
Many pro-ID people would not consider themselves "Creationinsts", but assuming that is whom you are referring to, please provide an example of how they are anti-science, deny microevolution (I've never heard that), or even that dinosaurs existed (never heard that either).

Google "cdesign proponentsists". In Message 92 you said:

quote:

---

ID has no issue with definitions 1-4, is somewhat agnostic on 5, and rejects the validity of 6.

---

where point #6 was:

quote:

---

6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.

---

If ID rejects what science concludes, that is anti-science.

quote:

---

The amount is kinda irrelevant. All that really matters is whether it is true or not.

---

Productivity is important. If ID is scientifically sterile then it will be shunned for a paradigm that makes more sense of observations. Not that ID publications are exactly known for being true.

quote:

---

Aside from that, there are papers being released just about every week that by implication are more supportive of the ID perspective than the Darwinian one, without directly mentioning either.

---

In my experience the ID people say that, but it is rarely - if ever - true.

quote:

---

ID itself is an idea, and thus doesnt have a "journal' of its own, any more than "evolution" has its own journal. If though you are referring to the Discovery Institute having its own journal, it does but that is irrelevant. ID topics are not only published there, as the Axe paper referenced in the first comment are.

---

The Discovery Institute crowd are the heart of the ID movement. So in fact I do count their journal as an ID journal.And the few papers the ID group get to pusblish elsewhere are generally unhelpful to ID, as Axe’s paper is.

quote:

---

And how can you say the Axe paper is useless?

---

I say that it is useless for supporting ID because it doesn’t contain any results that really support ID. I guess that it isn’t as bad as The Design Inference or Darwin’s Black Box turned out to be, but it’s still not much use.

Actually, my response was a direct answer to your question in Message 89.My understanding is that the skulls in the image are arranged in chronological order but that there is no further data, in the image, as far as evolutionary ancestors and descendants relationships. Oh, I am aware that ID proponents publish crap in their vanity journal that could never make it through peer review in an actual scientific journal.ID is nothing but creationism dressed up in sciencey sounding words. Pretend science. I don't know what I said that you are basing that on. "Evolution is change from generation to generation" is the most basic, simplest definition. The processes of evolution that have been discovered and studied over the past 150+ years are very complex and fill libraries. I wouldn't use 1.
2 would be need more explanation.
I wouldn't use 3 or 4 or 5.
6 is is nothing but a bullshit creationist description.

LOL! Why wouldn't i just Google "Creationist"? cdesign proponentsists ≠creationist, unless you are now saying the term is limited to some old books change of terms between versions. Epitaph indeed! LOL again. Some SCIENTISTS might conclude this. But SCIENCE doesn't necessarily conclude that an unguided, unintelligent process is 'sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms'
Disagreement with somebodies conclusion does not amount to anti-science. Science invites discourse and debate, it doesn't support dogmatic conclusions.

Or it may be shunned because it is not philosophically preferred and it has nothing to do with the science.
Whether it is "scientifically sterile" is yet to be demonstrated. What example can you provide that something said with regards to ID is not true? So you claim. But how about a recent article Parenteau, J. et al. (2019), Introns are mediators of cell response to starvation, Nature. that is more supportive of an ID view of things and puts another nail in the coffin for the 'Junk DNA' view that is common to Darwinian evolution. Then I guess you do not understand at all what Axe's paper is about. His paper provided a challenge to how Darwinian evolution is supposed to act. It estimates how rare amino acid sequences are that generate functional protein folds, and as a measure of the content of specified complexity within enzymes that is very relevant to questions of ID.

Even if we accept that the pictures are in chronological order, you cannot make any inference that there is any ancestor/descendant relationship. You can infer a relationship based on homology, but you cannot state that is is due to any parent/child link. It might be parent/child, or it might be a distant cousin linkage, or it might be an experiment by aliens, or it might be some other form of ID. My point is you are assuming some evolutionary linkage, but you do not have enough data to do so. No True Scotsman fallacy
Besides and again, the Axe paper from the first post wasn't in an "ID" vanity journal. Funny. That's the first time I've heard of Richard Dawkins being described as a "creationist". You must know that it is basically the description from his book.

quote:

---

Or it may be shunned because it is not philosophically preferred and it has nothing to do with the science.

---

As evolution was, until Darwin and Wallace made their case.

quote:

---

Whether it is "scientifically sterile" is yet to be demonstrated. What example can you provide that something said with regards to ID is not true?

---

How about Axe’s estimate of the proportion of protein sequences exhibiting enzymatic activity, since you listed that paper. And that’s one of the better pieces of ID work. See the critique [url=https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html]here (though it is linked on the first page of this thread so you have had the chance to see it already.)The idea that irreducible complexity cannot evolve is another common error (and one that Dembski has made). Behe didn’t make that mistake in Darwin’s Black Box, but he came very close to it.As to the scientific sterility I have already pointed out the lack of papers. And really ID is so vague - encompassing everything from Young Earth Creationism to Behe’s naturalistic evolution with occasional help from God it really can’t offer the same understanding of nature that evolution succeeds in providing.

quote:

---

So you claim. But how about a recent article Parenteau, J. et al. (2019), Introns are mediators of cell response to starvation, Nature. that is more supportive of an ID view of things and puts another nail in the coffin for the 'Junk DNA' view that is common to Darwinian evolution.

---

The idea of Junk DNA is alive and well (and hated by some supporters of Darwinian evolution - hence the ENCODE fiasco). A small function for some introns doesn’t really do much to change that.

quote:

---

Then I guess you do not understand at all what Axe's paper is about. His paper provided a challenge to how Darwinian evolution is supposed to act. It estimates how rare amino acid sequences are that generate functional protein folds, and as a measure of the content of specified complexity within enzymes that is very relevant to questions of ID.

---

Since the estimate is orders of magnitude too low and since it isn’t actually useful for probability calculations in many evolutionary scenarios it isn’t as useful as you think.

It demonstrates intermediate forms between humans and other apes which is evidence for evolution and common ancestry.

The theory of evolution predicts that there were species in the past who had a mixture of human and ape features, and these fossils fit those predictions. When a theory makes a prediction and the facts bear out those predictions then those facts are evidence for the theory.