Creationist/ID research

[TBDude65]

Axe and Gauger (two papers) are probably trying to draw conclusions friendly to some kind of creationism, since that's pretty much their thing.

I figured there might be some throwaway line in them somewhere that used some creationist buzzword; be it intentionally or unintentionally placed by the authors.

I've started reading the first and considering it already seems to ignore literally all of the research into the evolution and homology of the avian feather in relation to its importance of flight (which it doesn't give a decent treatment of since birds aren't the only animals that can fly, with members of other phyla flying successfully with no need of feathers), it isn't looking very convincing. You can't ignore all prior work and pretend it didn't happen in order to intentionally draw a polar opposite conclusion. This is asinine.

 

[pitabread]

so why the paper called : "evidence of design In bird feathers and avian respiration"?

I've noticed a trend among ID/creationist proponents that they think that by arguing against evolution they are some how arguing for design by default. But it doesn't work like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've noticed a trend among ID/creationist proponents that they think that by arguing against evolution they are some how arguing for design by default. But it doesn't work like that.

I agree.

The best argument for design is that the Bible says it (Job 38) and that settles it.

 

[pitabread]

The best argument for design is that the Bible says it (Job 38) and that settles it.

Yeah... no.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah... no.

Another good one is the fact that the stars tell the plan of salvation. (Psalm 19)

 

[pitabread]

Another good one is the fact that the stars tell the plan of salvation. (Psalm 19)

You do know that Bible quotes don't mean diddly to a non-believer, yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Another good one is the fact that the stars tell the plan of salvation. (Psalm 19)

You do know that Bible quotes don't mean diddly to a non-believer, yes?

Sorry -- let me edit it -- just for you:

Another good one is the fact that the stars tell the plan of salvation.

(You're welcome! )

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree.

The best argument for design is that the Bible says it (Job 38) and that settles it.

The bible is myopic.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible is myopic.

Only by design.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

 

[HitchSlap]

Only by design.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

"Well, that's like, your opinion, man."

 

[AV1611VET]

"Well, that's like, your opinion, man."

"Right on, Jack!"

 

[HitchSlap]

"Right on, Jack!"

Hit the road, Jack.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hit the road, Jack.

Dont'cha come back no more! no more!

 

[tas8831]

so why the paper called : "evidence of design In bird feathers and avian respiration"?

it is written by a young earth creationist and professor of thermodymics. it is essentially an argument from awe.

Of interest is this, provided by the publisher:

Editor’s Note: This paper presents a different paradigm than the traditional view. It is, in the view of the Journal, an exploratory paper that does not give a complete justification for the alternative view.​

And his conclusion:

"In this paper, we have considered two examples of design in birds which defy explanation by gradual changes since to function at all, all the parts necessary for function must be there to begin with..."

Another non-biologist creationist not familiar enough with what he attacks to produce anything of merit.

So, I would say that this one doesn't really count.

 

[Ophiolite]

Of course, turning the issue on its head, there is plenty of evidence of design in the natural world. Abundant evidence. And we have identified the designer. It is natural selection. So effective is natural selection that we are now using it in software to help us improve engineering designs.

I encourage ID scientists to find further examples of design in nature and thus add to the century and a half of convincing evidence for evolution by natural selection. Great work!

 

[AV1611VET]

So effective is natural selection that we are now using it in software to help us improve engineering designs.

More like you use biomimicry, where you pattern your engineering designs after animals that are already fully formed.

I even made a thread on it: Biomimicry

 

[Ophiolite]

More like you use biomimicry, where you pattern your engineering designs after animals that are already fully formed.

I even made a thread on it: Biomimicry

No. Not that at all. Do your own research for once, after reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Not that at all. Do your own research for once, after reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Read it and weep: Can You Mix Engineering and Natural Selection?