Evolution conflict and division

Nope. You can test this yourself. Roll dice, writing down a long list of results in order. But then any time you roll two consecutive odd numbers, roll again, replacing the previous result with the new result. Do maybe 200 of these. Then count the number of even numbers and odd numbers. If it's not close to 50-50, it's not random. A random process plus a non-random process, is a non-random process. This is why we see analogous organs and analogous organisms like bats and pterosaurs; the mutations were random, but natural selection is not random, so we end up with a non-random result.

Your logical error is to suppose that a single random element somehow rules out order. One of the things you learn in systems, is that this is a false belief.

o_mlly said:

You do know that the above is pure nonsense, right?

Click to expand...

Try it and see. You'll get a non-random result every time. You're just wrong and anyone with middle school math ability can see it. Notice that the numbers were always random, and yet the non-random processing of them leads to a non-random event.

He only knew that variation was a fact. But the had no idea how it happened. Darwin even suspected that acquired traits might be passed on.

o_mlly said:

? "[Darwin] only knew .... had no idea... Darwin even suspected that acquired ...". Now you claim to know the mind of a dead man?

Click to expand...

Charles Darwin was a firm believer in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In his book The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, Darwin gave many examples of the hereditary transmission of adaptations. He also published an account in Nature about dogs with an inborn fear of butchers. Their father had a violent antipathy to butchers, probably as a result of being mistreated by one, and this fear was transmitted not only to his children but also to his grandchildren.

Darwin knew nothing of genes or random mutations, which only became part of biology in the twentieth century. He put forward his own theory of heredity in the The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, entitled ‘The Provisional Hypothesis of Pangenesis.’ In order to understand, for example, how a dog could inherit something a parent had learned, or how a plant’s descendants could inherit its adaptations to a new environment, Darwin proposed that cells all over the body threw off microscopic ‘gemmules’ which somehow entered the egg and sperm or pollen cells, transforming them to make these characteristics hereditary.

o_mlly said:

Now you claim to know the mind of a dead man?

Click to expand...

Nope. I'd rather go with what he wrote.

EMBO Rep
2019 Mar 6;20

Lamarck and Darwin revisited​

Not aware of Mendel's work, Darwin published his own theory of heredity in 1868, calling it pangenesis. He proposed that each part of the body emits small organic particles called gemmules that aggregate in the gonads to contribute heritable information to the gametes. Darwin thought that environmental effects that altered characteristics would alter gemmules, which would then be transferred to offspring. His pangenesis theory allowed for the Lamarckian idea of transmission of acquired characteristics through use and disuse.

I thought man is a little lower than the angels. Do you disagree?

o_mlly said:

I think Bishop Taylor put it well:

Click to expand...

I think God put it better:
Hebrews 2:7 Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands:

o_mlly said:

Do you know what a heretic is?

Click to expand...

Someone who takes man's reasoning above God's word. But if you can show me another verse that indicates that Hebrews 2:7 is wrong, we can talk about it. What do you have?

o_mlly said:

If one professes to be Catholic, then they should stay with the Catholic translations.

Click to expand...

The Douay-Rheims version is authorized by the Church. Thought you knew.

o_mlly said:

You do know that the above is pure nonsense, right?

Click to expand...

As a theory, evolution is not random. Mutations for example can be random because factors like radiation strike DNA unpredictably, causing chemical changes or breaks. The exact location and timing of these DNA changes are essentially random, so the mutation itself isn’t directed. Radiation just increases the overall chance of mutations, it doesn’t “choose” beneficial ones. Natural selection then acts on these random mutations, favoring some and removing others (the non-random follow up).

Job 33:6 said:

The exact location and timing of these DNA changes are essentially random, so the mutation itself isn’t directed. Radiation just increases the overall chance of mutations, it doesn’t “choose” beneficial ones.

Click to expand...

This is an important point; DNA is self-repairing but the repair system is not completely effective. In most organisms, it's ineffective enough to produce a level of mutations that is too low to threaten the population, but high enough to allow the population to respond to changes in environment.

The Barbarian said:

Your logical error is to suppose that a single random element somehow rules out order.

Click to expand...

Nope. Your logical error is that somehow filtering events (that appear) random rules out their randomness.

The Barbarian said:

You'll get a non-random result every time.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The output of "random" input remains "random" no matter how much the input may be manipulated. Do you what know GIGO means? If so then replace the G's with R's.

The Barbarian said:

Nope. I'd rather go with what he wrote.

Click to expand...

That would be preferred. But what you have posted is not what he wrote.

The Barbarian said:

The Douay-Rheims version is authorized by the Church.

Click to expand...

That would be fine. But you didn't cite the full translation from Douay-Rheims, did you?
[a] Or them for a little while
Your deflections indicate that we're at the end of this exchange. I'll sum up the primary agreed point before your deflections.

Theistic evolution is not science but is based on faith.
So, if one takes the time to change all of your posts that contain, "As you can see ..." prepositions with, "As I believe ..." then there is no argument. You are entitled to your opinions.

As to whether this thread means anything as it relates to the economy of salvation (God's work in creating and governing the world), I answer in the affirmative. Darwin's bad guess gave the secular world the basis for dividing humanity into "species" of desirables and non-desirables. Darwinists first employed eugenics to stop their reproduction, second their political extermination, and then their mass murder as the "useless eaters". Today, the remnants of Darwinism still plague us with the evils of abortions and euthanasia.

Your logical error is to suppose that a single random element somehow rules out order.

o_mlly said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Yep. Try it. You'll get a nonrandom result every time. That's how things work.

The Douay-Rheims version is authorized by the Church.

o_mlly said:

That would be fine.

Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:

Hebrews 2:7 Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands:

Click to expand...

The Douay-Rheims version is authorized by the Church. Thought you knew.

o_mlly said:

That would be fine. But you didn't cite the full translation from Douay-Rheims, did you?
You made them a little[a] lower than the angels;[a] Or them for a little while

Click to expand...

It says man is a little lower than the angels. If you won't believe what He says here, it's not the first time God tells us this:
Psalms 8:5 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: 7 And hast set him over the works of thy hands.

Will you believe Him now?

o_mlly said:

Theistic evolution is not science but is based on faith.

Click to expand...

Like "theistic physics" or YEC. But evolutionary theory is based on evidence confirming the predictions of the theory. And evolution is an observed phenomenon,including macroevolution.

o_mlly said:

Darwin's bad guess gave the secular world the basis for dividing humanity into "species" of desirables and non-desirables.

Click to expand...

That occurred long before Darwin. You probably don't know that Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan debunked the racist foolishness of the Nazis and American eugenicists like YE creationist William Tinkle and racists like ICR founder Henry Morris, who was writing about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people into the 1990s. Here's YEC Henry Morris on black people:
“Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow, they have only gone so far and no further. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
...
“Their future will be one of service—providing mainly for the material and physical needs of mankind. Shem, on the other hand, with his concern for the Lord and His honor, will through his descendants lead men to know and follow God. Japheth also, with his more serious approach to life and its meaning, will see his descendants enlarged geographically and mentally, coming to dwell finally in the spiritual house built by the children of Shem. The children of Ham, however, even those of his youngest and least responsible son, Canaan, will have to be content with giving service to both Shem and Japheth providing the material basis of human society, upon which the spiritual and intellectual concerns of mankind can be superimposed.”
Henry Morris The Beginning of the World

Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves”, producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population”[8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:

It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children.[8, p. 131]

Click to expand...

YE first proposed eugenics to stop their reproduction, second their political extermination, and then the Nazis took the ideas of Tinkle and others to fuel their mass murder as the "useless eaters".

I'm not claiming that all YE creationists are racists. Many if not most have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism. But the fact remains. Darwin himself, in The Descent of Man, called eugenics ideas "an overwhelming evil." And again, I'm not saying that all YECs today are racists and eugenicists like the founders of their beliefs. But so far as I know, no leader of YEC has condemned the evils advocated by their founders.

If you can name an exception, I'd be pleased to hear it and I would mention it whenever the racism of YEC is discussed.

The Barbarian said:

It says man is a little lower than the angels. If you won't believe what He says here, it's not the first time God tells us this:
Psalms 8:5 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: 7 And hast set him over the works of thy hands.

Will you believe Him now?

Click to expand...

I believe Him; you, not so much. Still mining other translations?

Kindly start a new thread if wish to continue to deflect from this one.

The rest of your post just repeats what has already been refuted. Let us know if you have something new to offer.

Here's a list of problems for you to address within the contexts of this thread:

• Limited Fossil Record: The fossil record displays "sudden appearance" of complex organisms rather than the smooth, gradual transitions expected, with intermediate links frequently missing.
• Genetic Boundaries: Some perspectives argue that genetic changes are limited to within a "kind" (microevolution) and that mutations do not provide the novel genetic information required for entirely new, complex body structures.
• Mathematical Improbability: The probability of numerous beneficial, coordinated mutations occurring by chance over time to produce new, complex structures is considered highly improbable.
• Irreducible Complexity: Complex biological systems, such as molecular machines, require all components to be present simultaneously to function, making it difficult to explain their origin through step-by-step, gradual processes.
• Alternative Interpretations: Data often used to support evolution (such as homology, or structural similarities) can be reinterpreted through the lens of common design rather than common descent.
• Lack of Observation and Evidence: Macroevolutionary changes (large-scale,, new species/types) have never been observed within human history, rendering it historical speculation rather than observable science.

You could start with your first problem: After 150 years, you still don't have the bones.

o_mlly said:

I believe Him; you, not so much. Still mining other translations?

Yet you have made him little less than a god,*​

crowned him with glory and honor.​

Psalms, PSALM 8

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

Kindly start a new thread if wish to continue to deflect from this one.

The rest of your post just repeats what has already been refuted. Let us know if you have something new to offer.

Here's a list of problems for you to address within the contexts of this thread:

• Limited Fossil Record: The fossil record displays "sudden appearance" of complex organisms rather than the smooth, gradual transitions expected, with intermediate links frequently missing.
• Genetic Boundaries: Some perspectives argue that genetic changes are limited to within a "kind" (microevolution) and that mutations do not provide the novel genetic information required for entirely new, complex body structures.
• Mathematical Improbability: The probability of numerous beneficial, coordinated mutations occurring by chance over time to produce new, complex structures is considered highly improbable.
• Irreducible Complexity: Complex biological systems, such as molecular machines, require all components to be present simultaneously to function, making it difficult to explain their origin through step-by-step, gradual processes.
• Alternative Interpretations: Data often used to support evolution (such as homology, or structural similarities) can be reinterpreted through the lens of common design rather than common descent.
• Lack of Observation and Evidence: Macroevolutionary changes (large-scale,, new species/types) have never been observed within human history, rendering it historical speculation rather than observable science.

You could start with your first problem: After 150 years, you still don't have the bones.

Click to expand...

The problem with YEC arguments against paleontology is that we do have bones. And a popular example would be the predictions that resulted in the discovery of tiktaalik, a transitional species between fish and tetrapods.

It says man is a little lower than the angels. If you won't believe what He says here, it's not the first time God tells us this:
Psalms 8:5 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: 7 And hast set him over the works of thy hands.

Will you believe Him now?

o_mlly said:

I believe Him; you, not so much.

Click to expand...

He said it. I'm just showing you.

o_mlly said:

Yet you have made him little less than a god,*crowned him with glory and honor.

Click to expand...

I prefer God's version. Up to you, what you want to believe.

o_mlly said:

Here's a list of problems for you to address within the contexts of this thread:

• Limited Fossil Record: The fossil record displays "sudden appearance" of complex organisms rather than the smooth, gradual transitions expected, with intermediate links frequently missing.
• Genetic Boundaries: Some perspectives argue that genetic changes are limited to within a "kind" (microevolution) and that mutations do not provide the novel genetic information required for entirely new, complex body structures.
• Mathematical Improbability: The probability of numerous beneficial, coordinated mutations occurring by chance over time to produce new, complex structures is considered highly improbable.
• Irreducible Complexity: Complex biological systems, such as molecular machines, require all components to be present simultaneously to function, making it difficult to explain their origin through step-by-step, gradual processes.
• Alternative Interpretations: Data often used to support evolution (such as homology, or structural similarities) can be reinterpreted through the lens of common design rather than common descent.
• Lack of Observation and Evidence: Macroevolutionary changes (large-scale,, new species/types) have never been observed within human history, rendering it historical speculation rather than observable science.

You could start with your first problem: After 150 years, you still don't have the bones.

Click to expand...

Ah, the Gish Gallop lives. Well, let's ask a knowledgeable and honest YEC about the first one...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
That's a whole lot of bones...

And the second one, just handwaving:

o_mlly said:

Genetic Boundaries: Some perspectives argue that genetic changes are limited to within a "kind" (microevolution) and that mutations do not provide the novel genetic information required for entirely new, complex body structures.

Click to expand...

Sounds interesting. Tell you what; show us any step in evolution from prokaryotes to vertebrates that couldn't have formed by genetic changes. You ignored that before. Want to step up now? Name one.

And the science of evolutionary development has shown the genetics of changes from (for example) primitive deuterostomes to vertebrates. Would you like me to show you some of that? A good, and not too technical primer on this is Sean Carroll's Endless Forms, Most Beautiful.
Endless Forms Most Beautiful (book) - Wikipedia

Nature 22 April 2015

The deuterostome context of chordate origins​

Our understanding of vertebrate origins is powerfully informed by comparative morphology, embryology and genomics of chordates, hemichordates and echinoderms, which together make up the deuterostome clade. Striking body-plan differences among these phyla have historically hindered the identification of ancestral morphological features, but recent progress in molecular genetics and embryology has revealed deep similarities in body-axis formation and organization across deuterostomes, at stages before morphological differences develop. These developmental genetic features, along with robust support of pharyngeal gill slits as a shared deuterostome character, provide the foundation for the emergence of chordates.


To be continued...

o_mlly said:

Mathematical Improbability: The probability of numerous beneficial, coordinated mutations occurring by chance over time to produce new, complex structures is considered highly improbable.

Click to expand...

Well, lets test that assumption. Shuffle a deck of cards, and then deal them out, noting the order. The likelihood of that order is 1/52!, or about 1 divided by: 8.0658175170943878571660636856404e+67. So improbable as to be effectively impossible by your reasoning. And yet it happens every time. If you thought about it, you'd realize the logical error. Take Hall's observation of the evolution of a new irreducibly complex enzyme system in bacteria. The probability of it happening all at once in a set of mutations in one organism is about as low as your deck of cards. But the probability of it happening a step at a time, under natural selection is 1.0.

This is Statistics 101.

o_mlly said:

Irreducible Complexity: Complex biological systems, such as molecular machines, require all components to be present simultaneously to function, making it difficult to explain their origin through step-by-step, gradual processes.

Click to expand...

See above. Hall's bacteria first evolved a new enzyme system. But then, to everyone's surprise, a regulator evolved. A regulator only allows the enzyme to be produced if the nutrient is present to be broken down. So now, the system comprises nutrient, enzyme, and regulator. If one is absent, the system doesn't work. All components must be present simultaneously to function, and yet they originated by a step-by step, gradual process.

o_mlly said:

Alternative Interpretations: Data often used to support evolution (such as homology, or structural similarities) can be reinterpreted through the lens of common design rather than common descent.

Click to expand...

Homology doesn't indicate common descent. It shows common solutions to specific selective pressures in different lineages. Bat wings and pterosaur wings, for example. They "look alike", but are constructed from different parts in different ways. This shows that the different winged vertebrates aren't an evolutionary clade, but merely evolved similar solutions to the same selective forces.


These differences make no sense at all in terms of "design", but are perfectly understandable if they evolved by random mutation and natural selection. This goes back to the point I made earlier; you'd be more effective arguing against science, if you understood it better.

o_mlly said:

Lack of Observation and Evidence: Macroevolutionary changes (large-scale,, new species/types) have never been observed within human history, rendering it historical speculation rather than observable science.

Click to expand...

Actually, speciation has been observed from time to time. You were misled about that. Or perhaps you weren't aware that "microevolution" means "evolution within a species", and "macroevolution" means "evolution of new species. I'm aware that some YECs have tried to redefine it as "evolution so great that it could never be observed in human lifetimes." But of course the same argument could be made to claim that mountains can't erode down to low hills. No one takes that sort of claim seriously.

The Gish Gallp is named after YEC Duane Gish, who in public debates, would toss out as many specious criticisms of evolution as he could in the allotted time, knowing that his opponent couldn't possibly debunk them all in the allotted time he had. Gish would then do a victory lap over whatever the opponent didn't have time to debunk. The problem with trying the Gish Gallop on an internet forum, is one has time to dissect each of the claims being tossed out. It wasn't hard to debunk them, as they are rather old attempts; they used to be called "PRATS" (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Haven't seen some of these in quite a while. But worth revisiting for YECs not familiar with the reasons they fail.

Job 33:6 said:

The problem with YEC arguments against paleontology is that we do have bones.

Click to expand...

The absence of transitional fossils is not just a YEC argument.

Job 33:6 said:

And a popular example would be the predictions that resulted in the discovery of tiktaalik, a transitional species between fish and tetrapods.

Click to expand...

Touche.

The Barbarian said:

I prefer God's version. Up to you, what you want to believe.

Click to expand...

So do I prefer God's word. And, yes, it's up to the unnatural (not supernatural) faith of the theistic evolutionist to choose what they want to believe.

The Barbarian said:

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Click to expand...

? Still deceptively editing your citations? Here's Dr. Wise's sentences immediately before your quote:

The Barbarian said:

The probability of it happening all at once in a set of mutations in one organism is about as low as your deck of cards. But the probability of it happening a step at a time, under natural selection is 1.0.

Click to expand...

The math problem resides is in just how many steps would be necessary? You'll need more time, lots more time.

• Combinatorial Inflation: Meyer points out that for a short protein of 150 amino acids, the ratio of functional to non-functional sequences is roughly 1 to 10 to the 77 power. He argues that the estimated 4 billion years of Earth's history and the 10 to the 40 power organisms that have existed are insufficient to explore such a vast space of possibilities, making it highly improbable for random, functional sequences to emerge.

The rest of your post regurgitates evo claims already debunked.

The theist evolutionists are offering nothing new in this thread, I will not respond to old arguments but I understand their siege mentality.

I would suggest that they read Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts. Presenting new undeniable information, the new face intense resistance from those who benefit from or are deeply entrenched in the old way of thinking.

o_mlly said:

The absence of transitional fossils is not just a YEC argument.

Touche.

The Tiktaalik Missing Link Myth

In 2004, the paleontological community—and the world—was presented with what many evolutionists considered to be a dyed-in-the-wool missing link between fish and land animals (tetrapods). Evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin and evolutionary paleontologists Edward Daeschler and Farish Jenkins...

www.icr.org

So do I prefer God's word. And, yes, it's up to the unnatural (not supernatural) faith of the theistic evolutionist to choose what they want to believe.

? Still deceptively editing your citations? Here's Dr. Wise's sentences immediately before your quote:

​

Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory.​

​

The math problem resides is in just how many steps would be necessary? You'll need more time, lots more time.

• Combinatorial Inflation: Meyer points out that for a short protein of 150 amino acids, the ratio of functional to non-functional sequences is roughly 1 to 10 to the 77 power. He argues that the estimated 4 billion years of Earth's history and the 10 to the 40 power organisms that have existed are insufficient to explore such a vast space of possibilities, making it highly improbable for random, functional sequences to emerge.

The rest of your post regurgitates evo claims already debunked.

Click to expand...

ICR is a pseudoscience organization. I don't take their resources seriously. You're welcome to present their arguments if you think they're valid.

The claim that there are no transitional fossils is simply incorrect. Tiktaalik is one example among many, and it was predicted by evolutionary theory based on anatomy, stratigraphy, and paleoenvironment before it was discovered.

o_mlly said:

The theist evolutionists are offering nothing new in this thread, I will not respond to old arguments but I understand their siege mentality.

I would suggest that they read Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts. Presenting new undeniable information, the new face intense resistance from those who benefit from or are deeply entrenched in the old way of thinking.

Click to expand...

I already have studied Kuhn as a fixture within current Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science. Referring to Kuhn's work doesn't indicate that I.D. will eventually win out over evolutionary theory, let alone that Creation Science or YEC will become some norm in the future. I'm pretty sure they won't, and I'm just as sure of that as I am that the geological history of the earth is much older than merely 10,000 years.

But y'know what? Who cares? I don't. None of this has much to do with resisting the spirit of anti-christ. So maybe we can all just truce it since we're all Trinitarian Christians here.

o_mlly said:

The theist evolutionists are offering nothing new in this thread, I will not respond to old arguments but I understand their siege mentality.

I would suggest that they read Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts. Presenting new undeniable information, the new face intense resistance from those who benefit from or are deeply entrenched in the old way of thinking.

Click to expand...

I don't really see any need to offer new arguments because the originals are still as successful today as they always were. Remember, it isn't the scientists that lost in the dover trials all those years ago. And the theory of evolution is still accepted by concensus among scientists today. If it ain't broke, there is no need to change it.

Job 33:6 said:

I don't really see any need to offer new arguments because the originals are still as successful today as they always were. Remember, it isn't the scientists that lost in the dover trials all those years ago. And the theory of evolution is still accepted by concensus among scientists today. If it ain't broke, there is no need to change it.

Click to expand...

That's a good point and it shows just how out of touch, and some would say delusional, some creationists are. If they really believe some form of creationism, be it young-earth, intelligent design, or whatever, is poised to become the dominant paradigm in the life sciences within our lifetimes, it's hard to capture just how fanciful of a belief that is.

For intelligent design specifically, what's stopping its believers from doing their own brand of science under their preferred paradigm? If they can show how their way gets better results, the world will beat a path to their door. That the modern version of ID has been around for about 30 years and hasn't accomplished anything scientifically is a good indication of just how vacuous it is.

From a practical science standpoint it boils down to the old saw, "put up or shut up". So far intelligent design hasn't "put up" anything, and as far as I can tell they've "shut up" too. Has anyone heard a peep from them in the last 5-10 years?

o_mlly said:

Still deceptively editing your citations? Here's Dr. Wise's sentences immediately before your quote:
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory.

Click to expand...

As Dr. Stephen Gould observes, intraspecies transitionals are rare, but not absent. Which is what one would expect from evolutionary theory. Gould mentions horses, forams, and ammonites as examples. If you were right, there wouldn't be any at all. In fact, if you were right, there wouldn't be that vast number of transitional series Dr. Wise admits. Dr. Wise doesn't deny the facts; he merely says that there might someday be a valid creationist theory to explain the evidence. I don't think you're trying to be deceptive; I think you don't know very much about biology.

o_mlly said:

I would suggest that they read Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts. Presenting new undeniable information, the new face intense resistance from those who benefit from or are deeply entrenched in the old way of thinking.

Click to expand...

They laughed at Semmelweis. But they also laughed at the guy who "discovered" cold fusion. Here's the key; I've asked you to tell us which of the four points of Darwin's theory, and you haven't come up with even one. No one else can, either. So this is why the Modern Synthesis and subsequent revisions continue to incorporate Darwin's theory. When biologists began to accept Darwinian theory in the early 1900s, (after the rediscovery of genetics showed how new trait could persist in a population) many biologists who were deeply entrenched in the old way of thinking resisted the new paradigm. One of them was Agassiz, a truly great biologist, whose intrinsic racism would not allow him to accept the theory. But the new paradigm won out, because it's prediction were confirmed and it explained the evidence better than anything else. So far, that's been the case. As Kuhn noted clearly for anyone who had read his book, so long as a theory can be updated to account for new knowledge, that's what happens. And this is why only a tiny minority of biologists reject Darwinian evolutionary theory. About 0.3 percent, last time I checked.

o_mlly said:

The math problem resides is in just how many steps would be necessary? You'll need more time, lots more time.

Click to expand...

It took Hall's bacteria weeks. But of course, they reproduce rapidly.

o_mlly said:

Combinatorial Inflation: Meyer points out that for a short protein of 150 amino acids, the ratio of functional to non-functional sequences is roughly 1 to 10 to the 77 power.

Click to expand...

Assuming that they all had to happen at once and randomly. But as you learned, that's not how evolution works. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. And as Hall's bacteria demonstrated, the process happens in steps. It's not just in biology. Things like optimization of diesel engines works very well, using Darwinian evolutionary processes. The same odds Meyer cites, assuming randomness, would mean genetic algorithms don't work. But they work very well. Would you like me to show you?

o_mlly said:

The rest of your post regurgitates evo claims already debunked.

Click to expand...

I get that you're unhappy with the way this turned out. But simply declaring victory isn't going to help you. Try using evidence. Might be hard, given that it's pretty much stacked against you. But there are creationists like Dr. Todd Wood, who are willing to face it. Worth a try?