Evidence for Design (3)

[Loudmouth]

strawman, fallacy. Abusive adhominem and others.


also abiogenesis is equivelant to chemical evolution:

Chemical evolution is not equivalent to biological evolution.

 

[mzungu]

Peer reviewed ID paper on bird design, check it out.

PLEASE someone explain to him what Peer Review means! You post a link of a creationist site and expect us to take it seriously????

 

[bhsmte]

PLEASE someone explain to him what Peer Review means! You post a link of a creationist site and expect us to take it seriously????

I don't think it will matter.

 

[Black Akuma]

strawman, fallacy. Abusive adhominem and others.

Again, you can't just accuse people of committing random fallacies. If you don't actually understand what those words mean, you shouldn't use them. US presented no strawmen and saying that you don't know what you're talking about after giving an example showing that you don't is not engaging in ad hominem.

 

[Loudmouth]

PLEASE someone explain to him what Peer Review means! You post a link of a creationist site and expect us to take it seriously????

This paper is at least found in a peer reviewed journal, but a rather obscure one. The editors also felt it necessary to put this disclaimer on the paper:

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. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper. It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organise themselves. The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic. Comments are invited in the form of ‘Letters to the Editor’. Intelligent Design Gets Peer-Review… Sort Of | Smilodon's Retreat​

The author at the blog linked above sums it up nicely.

" Evolution has never been observed to make this change in the lab, so evolution is refuted. Design has never been observed to make this change in the lab either, but we think it valid."

The paper is nothing more than one big logical fallacy. The author can't imagine how it could evolve, therefore it didn't evolve, therefore God. No ID hypotheses are tested in any meaningful way.

 

[OllieFranz]

PLEASE someone explain to him what Peer Review means! You post a link of a creationist site and expect us to take it seriously????

I don't think it will matter.

Again, you can't just accuse people of committing random fallacies. If you don't actually understand what those words mean, you shouldn't use them. US presented no strawmen and saying that you don't know what you're talking about after giving an example showing that you don't is not engaging in ad hominem.

We've tried on multiple occasions to explain these terms to gradyll, but he still seems to think, at least from the way he uses them in his posts, that "strawman," "ad hominem," and "false dichotomy" are merely contentless insults and "peer-reviewed" is a compliment with no objective meaning.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, you can't just accuse people of committing random fallacies. If you don't actually understand what those words mean, you shouldn't use them. US presented no strawmen and saying that you don't know what you're talking about after giving an example showing that you don't is not engaging in ad hominem.

What you state above is accurate. The poster you are referring to does this quite often and is one of his core debate tactics. If you don't have evidence on your side, you try what you can, I guess.

 

[bhsmte]

We've tried on multiple occasions to explain these terms to gradyll, but he still seems to think, at least from the way he uses them in his posts, that "strawman," "ad hominem," and "false dichotomy" are merely contentless insults and "peer-reviewed" is a compliment with no objective meaning.

IMO, it is just a debate tactic to "muddy the waters" and to get attention away from the evidence. Not unlike an attorney who has a client who is guilty and the evidence is overwhelming. The only thing they can do is to confuse the jury, try desperately to discredit the evidence, create a conspiracy etc. etc.

Really, it is quite entertaining to watch all this develop.

 

[createdtoworship]

PLEASE someone explain to him what Peer Review means! You post a link of a creationist site and expect us to take it seriously????

the peer review (the last one I posted) was not from a creationist site, scroll back and read it. I posted the conclusion of the paper, and have recieved no commentation on it.

So I guess you lose by default.

You must now say that at least one IDer gave you a peer review on ID.

No other option.

or you could debate it,

but you won't

 

[OllieFranz]

This paper is at least found in a peer reviewed journal, but a rather obscure one. The editors also felt it necessary to put this disclaimer on the paper:

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. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper. It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organise themselves. The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic. Comments are invited in the form of ‘Letters to the Editor’. Intelligent Design Gets Peer-Review… Sort Of | Smilodon's Retreat​

The author at the blog linked above sums it up nicely.

" Evolution has never been observed to make this change in the lab, so evolution is refuted. Design has never been observed to make this change in the lab either, but we think it valid."

The paper is nothing more than one big logical fallacy. The author can't imagine how it could evolve, therefore it didn't evolve, therefore God. No ID hypotheses are tested in any meaningful way.

It also turns out that the author of the paper is on the editorial board of the journal it was published in, and it still was published with a disclaimer. The journal itself is an engineering journal with emphasis of using natures designs in engineering. The process is not normally reversible. And the author has no recognized credentials in biology or any other natural science. (The last would not necessarily be a strike against the paper if it were well researched and well written, but it does help to explain the many lapses in both protocol and knowledge.)

 

[Loudmouth]

the peer review (the last one I posted) was not from a creationist site, scroll back and read it. I posted the conclusion of the paper, and have recieved no commentation on it.

We have received no comments from you, either. What are your comments on the paper?

So I guess you lose by default.

You lost when you were incapable of showing any experiments from the paper that were used to test ID.

There is still no peer reviewed paper that tests an Intelligent Design hypothesis.

 

[mzungu]

the peer review (the last one I posted) was not from a creationist site, scroll back and read it. I posted the conclusion of the paper, and have recieved no commentation on it.

So I guess you lose by default.

You must now say that at least one IDer gave you a peer review on ID.

No other option.

or you could debate it,

but you won't

Show me one biologist who reviewed that paper? The journal not only had a disclaimer but is an engineering design journal. Hardly qualified to review the paper.

Perhaps you need to learn what the word "peer" means.

 

[OllieFranz]

the peer review (the last one I posted) was not from a creationist site, scroll back and read it. I posted the conclusion of the paper, and have recieved no commentation on it.

So I guess you lose by default.

You must now say that at least one IDer gave you a peer review on ID.

No other option.

or you could debate it,

but you won't

I'd trade you a c/p for your c/p if I were not on my mobile. The last few paragraphs of the blog Loudmouth links to takes the very same conclusion of the paper and tears it apart. The blogger finds the paper's author made the follwing errors (I am rephrasing them in my own words):

· He cites the wing and lung as examples of ID in a paper that purports to prove that they are examples of ID. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question."

· He assumes that according to evolution, all changes must be beneficial. Most changes are neutral, and become significant to evolution when the environment changes, or when they are the basis for a later change or mutation.

· He assumes the primary purpose of feathers is to aid in flight. It is more likely that they developed for insulation as therepods became warm-blooded, with a secondary purpose of mating displays

· He states that the existence of a Designer "is a valid scientific assumption," but gives no justification of such an assumption, thus ignoring the rule of parsimony (aka "Occam's Razor).

· He notes a large number of differences between birds and (modern) reptiles, while ignoring the fact that a class of extinct reptiles therepods and then later dinosaurs show a gradual accumulation of just those differences.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'd trade you a c/p for your c/p if I were not on my mobile. The last few paragraphs of the blog Loudmouth links to takes the very same conclusion of the paper and tears it apart. The blogger finds the paper's author made the follwing errors (I am rephrasing them in my own words):

· He cites the wing and lung as examples of ID in a paper that purports to prove that they are examples of ID. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question."

· He assumes that according to evolution, all changes must be beneficial. Most changes are neutral, and become significant to evolution when the environment changes, or when they are the basis for a later change or mutation.



· He states that the existence of a Designer "is a valid scientific assumption," but gives no justification of such an assumption, thus ignoring the rule of parsimony (aka "Occam's Razor).

· He notes a large number of differences between birds and (modern) reptiles, while ignoring the fact that a class of extinct reptiles therepods and then later dinosaurs show a gradual accumulation of just those differences.

right off the bat I found the following error of begging the question as to what purpose wings serve,

"· He assumes the primary purpose of feathers is to aid in flight. It is more likely that they developed for insulation as therepods became warm-blooded, with a secondary purpose of mating displays"

that begs the question far worse than any possible way my author did so.

I guess that is why the blog isn't peer reviewed.

Isn't it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Show me one biologist who reviewed that paper? The journal not only had a disclaimer but is an engineering design journal. Hardly qualified to review the paper.

Perhaps you need to learn what the word "peer" means.

so now all peer review must be peered only by biologists?

nice changing of the bars there,

point for me.

 

[createdtoworship]

There is still no peer reviewed paper that tests an Intelligent Design hypothesis.

what do you think that one was?

He hypothesized that avian wings/respiratory system(s) were designed.

I think you need to go back and study the posts a little more.

 

[bhsmte]

so now all peer review must be peered only by biologists?

nice changing of the bars there,

point for me.

Yep, you keep racking up the points, don't you grady.

Whats the imaginary tally on your scoreboard?

 

[Loudmouth]

what do you think that one was?

A series of logical fallacies, and a paper devoid of any positive ID hypotheses.

He hypothesized that avian wings/respiratory system(s) were designed.

How was that hypothesis tested?

I think you need to go back and study the posts a little more.

I understand it just fine. The whole paper can be summed up thusly:

1. We can't think of a way that avian lungs and feathers could evolve, even though there are viable pathways found in the literature which we refuse to reference.

2. Therefore God.

 

[Loudmouth]

so now all peer review must be peered only by biologists?

If the subject of the paper is biology, yes. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[OllieFranz]

right off the bat I found the following error of begging the question as to what purpose wings serve,

"· He assumes the primary purpose of feathers is to aid in flight. It is more likely that they developed for insulation as therepods became warm-blooded, with a secondary purpose of mating displays"

that begs the question far worse than any possible way my author did so.

I guess that is why the blog isn't peer reviewed.

Isn't it?

It is not begging the question when both downy tufts and, later, feathers (showing the evolution of feathers) are found on dinosaurs that were never designed for flight.

Not to mention that even if there were a problem, "begging the question" would not be the proper label, as I didn't claim to prove that feathers were developed as insulation, I just claimed that, given the evidence, it was more likely an explanation than flight control. Flight control is a secondary usage.