A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[createdtoworship]

Intelligent Design is such a philosophically fraught concept.

Off topic, evolution is the topic of the thread.

 

[pitabread]

Not proving it negative and not proving a negative, simply just responding to the peer review I already posted, which none can refute. design found in feathers

Except the article in question doesn't provide any evidence for design in feathers. It's a complete non-starter in that regard.

At this point I'm pretty sure you haven't even read it. You probably just hit up Google and linked to the first thing you found.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Off topic, evolution is the topic of the thread.

But specified complexity is Intelligent Design.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I must say I am intrigued here...but I'm unable to find the link to the Specified Complexity of Feathers discussed so far in this thread. Can someone provide me the link so that I might take a gander?

(Also, unlike some on here, I actually do have a PhD and have written for peer reviewed journals and actually been a peer reviewer! So I'm kinda interested in this!)

 

[pitabread]

I must say I am intrigued here...but I'm unable to find the link to the Specified Complexity of Feathers discussed so far in this thread. Can someone provide me the link so that I might take a gander?

It's here: Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Have fun.

(I'll be interested to see your reaction... Maybe you can help point out where the author actually provides evidence of design in birds, because I can't find it.)

 

[Obliquinaut]

It's here: Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Have fun.

Thanks!

 

[createdtoworship]

But specified complexity is Intelligent Design.

Yes, but both are off topic, evolution is the topic of this thread, not ID

 

[createdtoworship]

I must say I am intrigued here...but I'm unable to find the link to the Specified Complexity of Feathers discussed so far in this thread. Can someone provide me the link so that I might take a gander?

(Also, unlike some on here, I actually do have a PhD and have written for peer reviewed journals and actually been a peer reviewer! So I'm kinda interested in this!)

Unless your PhD is in evolutionary biology, sort of useless. sorry to be a prude.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It's here: Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Have fun.

(I'll be interested to see your reaction... Maybe you can help point out where the author actually provides evidence of design in birds, because I can't find it.)

OK, first off the journal seems like it might not be quite up to Nature standards, but...

First off within the first paragraph it gives a nod to irreducible complexity, which is almost always incorrect.

How on earth did they invoke thermodynamics in this discussion??? Wow.

The use of a paragraph outlining the need to remind the readers that life arising without intelligent design is, itself, an unproven assumption would seem to suggest the authors don't really understand what a "null hypothesis" is. That indeed, one always starts with the null and tests against it.

The discussion of feathers is interesting. Because not all feathers are flight surfaces, especially in birds. We have birds completely incapable of flight which have feathers. And recently dinosaurs have been found with feather impressions indicating that indeed they may have had feathers but no flight.

To make the leap that feathers had to be somehow present as made for flight or some specialized purpose other than simply variant body covering is where the irreducible complexity argument falls flat again.

The article jumps very quickly to "aerodynamic loading" in Section 2.4, but flight by feathered birds may very well have arisen long after feathers themselves were present in some form or another.

I must admit I'm not a biologist, but this is why Intelligent Design is so much more of a PHILOSOPHICAL endeavor. Yes, countless systems in living beings are quite complex and yes if we as humans were going to design a plant or a bird or a whale we'd build it up as a DESIGN, but that necessity does not hold for nature.

These structures are hardly impossible to form and once formed as long as they are not maladaptive prior to passing on the genes will remain. AND if adaptive will probably lead to those genes being preferentially passed along.

This is also the glory of TIME in the life sciences. We have millions of years (billions) to work with to develop systems. It's not perfectly random, but it is governed by an overarching passive filter.

This is kind of fascinating. I need to learn more about Turing Reaction Diffusion. But it also seems like the authors may be working backwards from the structures in feathers that they take as being necessary for flight back to first principles in the DNA of the animal. As if those FUNCTIONS dictated the need for the DNA sequence instead of the DNA sequence giving rise to features which just happened to have a function later on.

Need to take a break here for a bit and read on... Thanks for the link!

 

[Obliquinaut]

Unless your PhD is in evolutionary biology, sort of useless. sorry to be a prude.

You are correct, it is not in evolutionary biology.

Is your PhD in evolutionary biology?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yes, but both are off topic, evolution is the topic of this thread, not ID

The article is an Intelligent Design article. You might have missed that. It's in the Introduction section of the article (Section 1). You should read it when you have time. (I'm still working on it).

 

[createdtoworship]

OK, first off the journal seems like it might not be quite up to Nature standards, but...

First off within the first paragraph it gives a nod to irreducible complexity, which is almost always incorrect.

How on earth did they invoke thermodynamics in this discussion??? Wow.

The use of a paragraph outlining the need to remind the readers that life arising without intelligent design is, itself, an unproven assumption would seem to suggest the authors don't really understand what a "null hypothesis" is. That indeed, one always starts with the null and tests against it.

The discussion of feathers is interesting. Because not all feathers are flight surfaces, especially in birds. We have birds completely incapable of flight which have feathers. And recently dinosaurs have been found with feather impressions indicating that indeed they may have had feathers but no flight.

To make the leap that feathers had to be somehow present as made for flight or some specialized purpose other than simply variant body covering is where the irreducible complexity argument falls flat again.

The article jumps very quickly to "aerodynamic loading" in Section 2.4, but flight by feathered birds may very well have arisen long after feathers themselves were present in some form or another.

I must admit I'm not a biologist, but this is why Intelligent Design is so much more of a PHILOSOPHICAL endeavor. Yes, countless systems in living beings are quite complex and yes if we as humans were going to design a plant or a bird or a whale we'd build it up as a DESIGN, but that necessity does not hold for nature.

These structures are hardly impossible to form and once formed as long as they are not maladaptive prior to passing on the genes will remain. AND if adaptive will probably lead to those genes being preferentially passed along.

This is also the glory of TIME in the life sciences. We have millions of years (billions) to work with to develop systems. It's not perfectly random, but it is governed by an overarching passive filter.

This is kind of fascinating. I need to learn more about Turing Reaction Diffusion. But it also seems like the authors may be working backwards from the structures in feathers that they take as being necessary for flight back to first principles in the DNA of the animal. As if those FUNCTIONS dictated the need for the DNA sequence instead of the DNA sequence giving rise to features which just happened to have a function later on.

Need to take a break here for a bit and read on... Thanks for the link!

sorry off topic, take it to a new thread, plus your phd is in wrong field.

 

[createdtoworship]

The article is an Intelligent Design article. You might have missed that. It's in the Introduction section of the article (Section 1). You should read it when you have time. (I'm still working on it).

it's an article questioning evolution. ID is off topic. and all ID related posts will be reported. make a new thread please.

 

[createdtoworship]

The article is an Intelligent Design article. You might have missed that. It's in the Introduction section of the article (Section 1). You should read it when you have time. (I'm still working on it).

however i did make a new thread here detailing stellar evolution's problems and biological evolutions problems...A thread on evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

are you my judge? I though only God can judge others. for in what manner ye judge others, by that manner shall ye also be judged.

I am merely stating the obvious. You said that you would watch a video if I answered a question for you. I did so. You can draw your own conclusions.

Besides that, you know that "only God can judge others" does not fly with about half of the people in this part of the forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi! I just stumbled in here without a lot of background on what is being discussed, but this phrase caught my attention: it is never the job of anyone to prove a negative. It is, in fact, the job of those proving a positive claim to support that claim.

Usually the null hypothesis is "there is no...X..." and testing against that.

Now, granted, it may be an interesting exercise to find cases where a given claim is clearly false, but I am unaware of cases where someone must go through literature and prove every instance of a particular case false.



Does one need to be a PhD scientist to refute your claims? What is your PhD in? Just curious in the event that one day I am your interlocutor.

He had that claim about not having to prove a negative wrong too. If one makes an affirmative claim one is taking on a burden of proof. If I say "this rock will not fall when I drop it" the burden of proof is upon me. I can't claim victory while refusing to drop the rock.

 

[pitabread]

it's an article questioning evolution. ID is off topic. and all ID related posts will be reported. make a new thread please.

Make sure you report yourself then, since you're the one who originally linked that article in this thread.

 

[Gene2memE]

however i did make a new thread here detailing stellar evolution's problems and biological evolutions problems...A thread on evolution

It's really hard to take you seriously, when you can't even get one of the basic terms correct.

 

[Gene2memE]

Also, you don't need a PhD in biology to get published and improve our knowledge of evolutionary biology. You don't even need to have graduated:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170705132945.htm

 

[Obliquinaut]

sorry off topic, take it to a new thread, plus your phd is in wrong field.

GradyII, I am very interested. Are you a PhD evolutionary biologist? That would be very interesting to hear about from your perspective.

When you got your PhD in evolutionary biology did you work on things like "irreducible complexity"?

Thanks!