Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Greg1234]

These "theories" that you're talking about existed long before this controversy ever emerged and are based on common sense: if you have one rock with very durable crystals (it takes several days in one of the strongest acids in existence at 200-300 degrees Celsius to dissolved them for analysis) that erodes, with the mineral grains carried to a basin and deposited, then you'd expect to find those grains in the sedimentary rock found in that basin, right? That's just basic logic.

Yes that's the theory. The fact that the fossils dated the rock to be 540MA means "When scientists dated the Indian deposits, they may have calculated the age of 1.1-billion-year-old rock grains that washed into the ocean and became incorporated in much younger limestone and sandstone."

Thanks for the link. It's actually pretty interesting reading - just based on that, it seems like there's a reasonable possibility that her dates are right. Fission track dating is notoriously unreliable, but the ages she got were pretty old, even with the massive error accounted for. The one thing to note is that clays often contain high amounts of thorium, one of the daughter products used in U-series dating, and there was a lot of clay in the dig site. That would increase the amount of apparent daughter product, making the artifacts seem older. Of course, this can be accounted for, so it may be moot. The articles didn't say whether they had applied a correction.

http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/Szabo_et_al_1969.pdf (page 243)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-4754.00124/abstract

Honestly, if her data is right, that would be pretty cool.

Yea, just ask her. It's been a pretty "cool" ride.

Eh, reading the articles, it sounded like she did a pretty good job of verifying her dates. As a tephrochronologist, she was able to compare the ash with ash beds that had been previously dated to around the expected age and found no correlation.It would be better if she was able to get some older ash samples as well to compare to, but it sounds like those are nowhere near to being exposed.

We're dating them, remember?

In some cases, yes.

Ah, I see. There was an individual here saying that she dated the rocks. You should give him a good talking to.

 

[Greg1234]

I was talking about an artifact associated with volcanic ash, not a fossil. If I commented about the wrong post, sorry.

So why did you think that rocks can be used to date fossils but not artifacts?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yes that's the theory. The fact that the fossils dated the rock to be 540MA means "When scientists dated the Indian deposits, they may have calculated the age of 1.1-billion-year-old rock grains that washed into the ocean and became incorporated in much younger limestone and sandstone."

And your point is...? The only grains that they could have calculated the age from would be zircons. Unless the zircons are found in association with a volcanic deposit like an ash bed, they have to have come from somewhere else - they are an igneous mineral and don't form in sedimentary rocks. There was no mention of an ash bed, so I, the reader, have to assume that they were detrital zircons - zircons that weathered out of another formation.

This was already known beforehand, and was reported (poorly) as such in the original article. The media (as it is wont to do) saw "animal life" and "1.1 billion years old" and went nuts over it, incorrectly claiming that the rocks were 1.1 billion years old when that was just the maximum age (i.e. the rocks could, at least based on the age data available, be anywhere between 1.1 billion years old and 0 years old). A while later, a new constraint in the form of biostratigraphic dating was added. And actually, since it's for the layer above, it's only a minimum age. So the sandstone is somewhere between 1.1 billion and 500-odd million years old, though it's probably closer to the second number since the limestone with the fossils contains zircons of the same age as the zircons in the sandstone, meaning that they probably have the same source.

This is not, as you are trying to suggest, a case of two numbers disagreeing, causing a wild theory to spring up so that it can be explained. This is a fundamental principle of geology.

http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/Szabo_et_al_1969.pdf (page 243)

Must have missed that article, thanks. So it appears, at least superficially, that her dates are good. I may still be missing something due to my lack of knowledge about the dating methods used and their limitations, but at this point I doubt it.

I'm still lost as to why you brought this up though - it's an example of a scientific idea that sounds pretty crazy (hominids in Central America in the Pleistocene), but may actually be true and has been sidelined because it doesn't agree with the mainstream opinion. There are and have been plenty of ideas out there like this, including some that were later accepted (plate tectonics, anyone?)

Yea, just ask her. It's been a pretty "cool" ride.

I meant cool in the scientific sense, though I'm sure she'd think it was cool if her work was finally accepted as well. The last 40 years haven't been cool, of course - no one is claiming that.

We're dating them, remember?

Huh? Who's "we"?

Ah, I see. There was an individual here saying that she dated the rocks. You should give him a good talking to.

Not sure what you mean - you asked if fossils are dated by the rocks they're in (i.e. the rock is dated, not the fossil), and I confirmed that this is true in some cases. In other cases, the fossils are dated independently of the rocks. In this particular case, both methods were used. The fossilized bones were dated via U-series, and the ash beds were dated with fission track. Rick isn't completely right, but he's not completely wrong either. I suspect he didn't read all the articles, which is something we're all guilty of from time to time. I see no need to take him to task over it. And in fairness, the short little video you posted made no mention of bones and only discussed artifacts, so I can see where he got confused.

 

[idscience]

There are some who believe that Darwin's tree of life is a smooth picture of life as it evolved over millions of years. In complete agreement morphologically and phyogenetically through DNA.


You may get this picture from a grade school science book, but dig a little deeper and you find, things are not adding up for scientists. Some think the tree should be discarded all together, while others think the tree is far to complicated like a shrub, with everything going everywhere.

• Charles Darwin’s tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading’, claim scientists (Telegraph)”Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”
• Darwin’s Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket (Physorg)”However, for some time, evolutionary biologists have known that the picture is not quite so clear. A recent feature article in New Scientistinvestigates the current views of biologists – that organisms may pass traits not just to their offspring, but to other living organisms – and suggests that uprooting the tree of life may be the start of a revolutionary change in biology.The possibility that evolution isn’t as clear as the tree of life is not a brand new idea to biologists, but it has slowly risen from various studies. In the 1950s and following decades, the discovery of DNA, RNA, and protein sequences revealed that species once thought to be near each other on the tree are in fact quite different, molecularly speaking. In the early ’90s, scientists had hoped that gene sequencing would help them piece together the tree of life, but instead it showed conflicting results. For instance, some species that are closely related based on their DNA are not closely related at all based on their RNA.”

So you see from these evolutionary biologists, there are some problems as science digs deep into the workings of life. Darwin's simple tree that was to so elegantly explain the diversity of life, is a fallacy.


Here are two more articles.

• HOMOLOGY IN CRISIS
• HOMOLOGY OUT THE WINDOW

Here is an article in the New York Times describing the "thicket" nature of the tree, or many trees actually. It is as though everything is related to everything without any discernible upward progression. Mophology/Homology is the comparative study of fossils and DNA. It is first determined that common descent happened. Then you start with morphology because similar structures are evidence of common descent. So morphology is not following the evidence to a conclusion. Common descent is taken as fact, and morphology is then made to fit that fact. Of course if your science is to explain common descent you are only going to see common descent, no matter how convoluted the evidence gets, not matter how conflicting it gets, it doesn't matter. CD happened so it has to fit somehow, you just have to figure out how.
ID theorists, believe the similarity is due to common design. This would also explain why everything seems to relate to everything else vertically and laterally. There are some who may thing Horizontal Gene Transfer may account for some of the mess but, that plays no part in common ancestry as the genetic material is not passed on down through related organisms.


Look at this quote form the article "Crunching The Data For The Tree Of Life".

• "When biologists draw the relationships of some groups of plant species, their pictures look more like webs than trees. In other cases, genes don’t have to wait for two species to come together — they simply leap from one branch of life to another."

That leap he is talking about is what I like to call (mEDT) or macro-Evolutionary Duct Tape. I believe biologists call it "Jumping Genes". This is used to fit the evidence into the hypothesis that remember, is already a fact. Other scientists are following the data to the best fit, not wrestling it into submission.
You will hear evolutionists come up with a world full of explanations for this because they have to. It was predetermined that common descent occurred so they have to make it work. They are stuck in a box of their own making. Have a look at this quote from the article


CRUNCHING THE DATA FOR THE TREE OF LIFE.

• "The science of tree-building took a significant step forward in the late 1900s. Biologists set up standard rules for comparing species and figuring out who was most closely related to whom. Once they were all speaking the same scientific language, they could test each others hypotheses with new evidence."

It was decided what constituted evidence for common descent, and they were tested on it. Once all the biologists were properly prepared on what to look for they could get on with figuring out evolution. Dr. Sanderson is confident a tree with emerge but he says no one will be able to see it because it is a thicket, not a tree. He goes onto say there are actually hundreds of thousands of tree.

• At first biologists could draw only small trees, typically with a dozen branches at most. They were held back by the fact that a group of species may possibly be related in many different ways. If a biologist adds more species to a group, the possibilities explode. "For 25 species, there are more possible trees than there are stars in the known universe," Dr. Westneat said. "For 80 species, there are more trees than there are atoms in the known universe."

CHARLES DARWIN WRONG ABOUT THE TREE OF LIFE

• "The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

THE DYNAMICS OF EVOLUTIONARY STASIS
"Abstract.—The fossil record displays remarkable stasis in many species over long time periods, yet studies of extant populations often reveal rapid phenotypic evolution and genetic differentiation among populations. Recent advances in our understanding of the fossil record and in population genetics and evolutionary ecology point to the complex geographic structure of species being fundamental to resolution of how taxa can commonly exhibit both short-term evolutionary dynamics and long-term stasis." (PDF) If you trouble with link

• "Such studies are crucial to the demonstration that patterns of stasis in the fossil record constitute a genuine problem for evolutionary theory."

This paper tries to explain why there seems to be, or rather, why stasis (no change) is so prevalent in the fossil record, followed by explosive change or as this paper puts it "evolution". If you read the abstract, you get a picture, and this is it. The fossil record is full of organisms that are obviously not changing (evolving). This is evident by the living fossils found today that look exactly the same as they did hundreds of millions of years ago. This is also evident though out the fossil record, which is attested to here. Now the term "short term evolutionary dynamics" is a smart guys language for rapid evolution. What is meant by rapid evolution. Well, that is code for no transitional evidence. The changes are fast and the morphology is rapid. As you read the paper it is admitted that stasis is the norm, rapid evolution is very rare.
Many scientists believe that there is not rapid evolution occurring at all. The reason there are so few examples is that there are only a few fossils evolutionists can make fit into the mold. Remember, scientists say they are related because common ancestry is a fact. So how do you explain little or no change in the fossil record? You have to find something anything that you can argue could be a descendant. When you can only find what seems to be very distant relations because they are so different, then rapid or explosive evolution has to be the cause, because common ancestry is a fact.

This paper is by full on evolutionary scientists not ID supporters. Read it.
It is clear there is no answer yet for the lack of a smooth evolutionary picture in the fossil record. It clearly shows no evidence that organisms change slowly over time. Otherwise this paper would have stated it, and would not go to great lengths explaining why things don't change. I submit, the apparent changes of one organism into another is just that, apparent. It cannot be tested, it is the assessment of the paleobiologist that there is any relationship to a common ancestor.

This isn't just Intelligent Design scientists saying Darwin's tree is a mess. It's evolutionary biologists. So you see, when you hear or read of someone claiming the smoothness of the tree of life proving common descent. Ask them if the book they got it from had nice pictures too.

CONTINUED......

 

[idscience]

UC Berkeley has an evolutionary page with an example of "punctuated equalibrium". First is the anoying homage to the evo-god. Followed by what they call (PE). It is actually speciation of a sort. Small veriation not major changes. The theory of (PE) came about to explain sudden appearances of new body plans, not slight veriations of species. Notice how they thow in how no fossils will remain. Evolution is chock full of explanations for what is missing from the hypothesis. One roll of (mEDT) after another.
Here is another paper: SPECIATION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD

• "Small mammals, such as insectivores, rodents and bats, are represented in some rock sequences by abundant fossils, particularly

of their teeth, and these are ideal for morphometric studies of speciation. The fossil record of small mammals shows a wide variety of patterns of evolution. However, detailed records of gradual
speciation events do not exist,"

This paper talks extensively about th importance of stasis in evolution. Which is strange, the importance of little to no change? Anyhow, followed by rapid speciation. It talks about the debates about the gaps in the fossil record as well is candid about the lack of evidence showing gradualism. Which is why rapid speciation or (punctuated equalibrium) is needed to explain it.
In stead of coming up with all these exotic excuses to solve all the problems how about following the evidence. Maybe common ancestry didn't happen. Give it a read, it is very pro evolution and tries hard to fill the holes in the hypothesis.
STEPHEN JAY. GOULD BOOK: Punctuated Equalibrium

• "The theory holds that species originate too rapidly to enable their origins to be traced by paleontologists (punctuation), and then persist unchanged through geological time in stasis (equilibrium). All is due to a mysterious shared homeostasis that is postulated to regulate the collective morphology of individuals. When species-level homeostasis is working, species persist unchanged; when species-level homeostasis breaks down, speciation results. It is difficult to imagine a construct more antithetical to Darwinian natural selection."

Now anyone who has done extensive research on evolution is familiar with (PE). It is a hypothesis for a reason. The evidence for gradualistic evolution is not in the fossil record. If it was, there would be no need for (PE) The reviewer of the book had these comments:

• Homeostasis, equilibrium, punctuation, and even allopatric speciation are theories to explain what cannot be seen and studied.This view was more fully articulated in a book chapter by Eldredge and Gould titled ‘Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism’ (in Models in Paleobiology edited by T. J. M. Schopf; Freeman Cooper, 1972). Introducing the chapter, Schopf wrote:
• "The significance of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record has been a recurrent ‘difficulty,’
• used on the one hand to show that spontaneous generation is a ‘fact,’ and on the other hand to illustrate the incompleteness of the fossil record... The interpretation supported by Eldredge and Gould is that allopatric speciation in small, peripheral populations automatically results in ‘gaps’ in the fossil record.

Interesting that here the word 'Fact' is used, why? Because there is no other explanation for no transitional fossils. I am not saying this, it is evolutionist who are. Argue with them. Evolution happened so it is a fact things evolved to fast to leave evidence of gradualistic changes. This again, is what happens when you have to make the evidence fit your hypothesis.

 

[USincognito]

This quote pretty much spells out the faith of evolution.

Nobel laureate, Harvard professor George Wald


This summs up the logic of the evolutionist. I believe the impossible because I choose to belive in the miracle of time rather than the miracle of God. they can bow down to their god of time, then hurl stones and insults at those who believe in a living God.

This is a quote mine.
Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes
"Creationists are free to dispute Wald's arguments or his conclusions, of course. In fact, he accepts, based on the evidence available in 1954, that there was some 2 billion years between the point that conditions on Earth made life possible and its first appearance. Evidence discovered in the 50 years that have passed since Wald's article suggests that liquid water first appeared on the Earth about 4.4 billion years ago, while the earliest fossils found are dated at 3.5 billion years ago and the earliest (though disputed) signs of life date to 3.8 billion years ago. It is not immediately obvious that 700 million years or so is insufficient for Wald's argument to be valid.

Ultimately, the question of whether the arguments Wald advanced were right is not the point here. The quote miners could have set out Wald's arguments and tried to make a case against them and no one could have complained. They chose, instead, to misrepresent his arguments in an attempt to hijack Wald's reputation. They succeeded only in ruining their own."

 

[USincognito]

So here we have a paper from the journal Nature trying to explain why chimps and humans are no so similar after all. We read words like "rappid evolution" as if that expains anything. There is no mechanism for "rappid evolution" outside of "punchuated equalibrium", which is evolutions equivalent to a "miracle".

Actually that's the abstract and it presents what the authors of the paper hope to demonstrate in the rest of it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Note how at the end of the paper they don't mention Punk Eek or miracles. They explain what conclusions can be drawn from the rest of the information in the paper.

Three of these factors distinguished the evolving hominid MSY from the bulk of the genome: (1) the highly disproportionate role of MSY genes—especially ampliconic gene families—in sperm production13, (2) the brisk kinetics of ectopic recombination and resultant structural change in ampliconic regions18, and (3) the absence of crossing over with a homologue, which creates the opportunity for a single advantageous mutation to dictate the evolutionary fate of the MSY (‘genetic hitchhiking’)1, 3. The evolutionary effect of these three MSY features was probably multiplied by sperm competition, especially in the lineage of the modern chimpanzee, in which several males mate with the same female at each oestrus27. This heightened sperm competition in the chimpanzee lineage, along with positive selection and hitchhiking effects, may account for greater MSY sequence amplification than in the human MSY, and extensive gene loss compared with little or none in the human MSY. In the future, complete Y-chromosome sequences from other species will shed further light on these hypotheses.​

The answer to the difference in Male Specific Y is between humans and chimps is our different mating patterns.

Many scientists believe humans are closer to orangutans than chimps.

How many? Do you have a link?

This is a numbers game. Chimps are not 99% similar to humans.

Hilarious. It's C/IDers taht like playing the numbers game. The differences run between 99.2% and ~90% depending on what one is comparing - functional genes, all genes, indels, individual bases, etc.

Ape's are ape's and humans are humans.

A meaningless statement because humans are apes.

We have similar building and regulatory instructions in us because the master builder programmed us that way. Life processes are similar in all living, breathing things, so it would be sensible that the programming would be similar as well.

This is the ad hoc "common design" argument. The only problem is parsimony suggests that common descent is the more likely scenario. C/IDers never can point to the genome and show us these pre-programmed parts or genetic front loading that allows for variation within "kinds". The explanations for pseudogenes and ERVs is similarly tepid and lacking in explanitory power. There's no reason for a common designer to place ERVs in primates in such a way as to mimic common ancestry other than to fool us into thinking common ancestry is true.

 

[USincognito]

This isn't what the record shows. The Cambrian explosion exibits the sudden appearance of all the major body plans (phyla) all at once. The fossils found there are almost identical to what is alive and well today.

That last part isn't true at all. Virtually all animals in the Cambrain bear no resemblance to anything found alive today. Additionally there are no terrestrial vertebrates - the largest beings for the last 300 million years - to be found in the Cambrian.

This is why living fossils that are found today, that have been thought extinct for hundreds of millions of years, are virtually identical to their fossils.

Again, not true at all. Take the oft cited Coelacanth. They are sufficiently different from fossil finds that they are in their own genus.
DINOFISH.COM - Weird Bodies Frozen in Time

An onion has 12 times the DNA as your average evolutionary biologist and the Amoeba dubia has 200 times more DNA than you or I. That is puzzelling?

Not at all. Amoebas and onions have had a very long time for their genomes to do all sorts of things like complete genome copying events.

 

[USincognito]

{snip a lot of ironic stuff}
Variation within species is evident today and observable. What is not evident, observable or provable is that these small changes can account for the major changes involved in... lets say turning bones hollow for birds.

This is rediculous and would make virtually everything outside of mixing two chemicals in a lab setting "unobservable". C/IDers also try and play fast and loose with definitions. The observation requirement is met when we observe the findings of fossil excavation and genetic testing. All of the current observations show that living birds, their extinct dinosaur kin and modern reptiles are closely related.

evolution is blind, so assuming bones became hollow because they are lighter is absurd. Not only is the process staggering in complexity over so many systems, processes and information exchanges,

Ah, argumentum ad it's blowin' my mind man. Actually, there just needed to be a few changes to grow feathers. A few adaptations for theropod forelimbs to become wings. A few mutations in bone density. And tweeks to those systems over a couple dozen million years.

I'd also as that you define information in a way that is quantifiable.

...but the "bird" doesn't know hollow bones are a benefit.

Kind of ironic that you used absurd above and then finish up with this gem. Where is it suggested in evolutionary theory that any being should "know" what changes will effect it positively or negatively with regard to change or survival?

Birds were long time thought to be from dinosaurs, new research has shown that birds did not come from dinosaurs, infact sceintists are now saying it may have happend the other way around. A complete reversal. In other words, scientists don't have a clue.

More irony. The only person saying that is John Ruben and he's a maverick who, just like Feduccia (who thinks that birds evolved from different dinosaurs than theropods) is very much in the minority.

{snip more irony}

 

[idscience]

Didier Raoult is an eminent scientist at the University of Aix-Marseille in France. He leads of a team of 200 scientists and students. "Science" wrote an article about him this week calling him;

• "the most productive and influential microbiologist in France"

Raoult doubts Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact he wrote a "popular" and controversial science book that;

• "flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong."

What did his boldness get him? He was stifled by leading journals.

• "he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006."

This 59 year old scientists seems to walk his own line. One inline with the evidence he sees. There is always a price for integrity. Unfortunately, when your in the world of evolutionary biology, that price is censorship, and oppression.




Continuing on this theme, David Coppedge, a 14-year JPL veteran and team lead computer administrator on the Cassini Mission to Saturn, began his trial yesterday against NASA Jet Propulsion Lab. Coppedge has brought suit against them after being demoted and harassed for lending a co-worker some dvd's on Intelligent Design. He was then fired. After a hearing was held, a judge ruled the discrimination trial would go ahead.

• "The court then found “there are triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s demotion, written warning, negative performance evaluations, and ultimate termination were adverse employment actions. … While the written warning or negative performance evaluations may not be actionable in isolation, a trier of fact would be entitled to consider them as a part of a generalized discriminatory response to plaintiff’s religious views or protected activities.”“A trier of fact would be entitled to disbelieve defendant’s stated reasons for the adverse employment actions,” the court opinion continued. “A trier could find it suspicious that defendant initially investigated plaintiff for workplace harassment, issued a written warning that was later rescinded, and demoted plaintiff for reasons separate from the alleged workplace harassment. The shifting nature of defendant’s response to the alleged workplace harassment could cause a trier of fact to question the legitimacy of the demotion and written warning.” Read the rest of the article here.
  

The DVD's that were given to the co-worker were "The Privileged Planet, and Unlocking The Mystery Of Life. The California Science Center tried to stifle the viewing of these DVD's in 2009 and it cost them a $110,000.00 settlement in which they also had to pay plaintiffs legal fees. See the story here

Privileged Planet (Chapter 1 of 12) - YouTube

Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 1 of 12) - YouTube

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I think we've been quote mined and trolled boys. Whad'ya think?

Kind of reminds me of the Weitzenhoffer quote. I'll see if I can track it down.

Found it:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer​

 

[idscience]

This is rediculous and would make virtually everything outside of mixing two chemicals in a lab setting "unobservable". C/IDers also try and play fast and loose with definitions. The observation requirement is met when we observe the findings of fossil excavation and genetic testing. All of the current observations show that living birds, their extinct dinosaur kin and modern reptiles are closely related.



Ah, argumentum ad it's blowin' my mind man. Actually, there just needed to be a few changes to grow feathers. A few adaptations for theropod forelimbs to become wings. A few mutations in bone density. And tweeks to those systems over a couple dozen million years.

I'd also as that you define information in a way that is quantifiable.



Kind of ironic that you used absurd above and then finish up with this gem. Where is it suggested in evolutionary theory that any being should "know" what changes will effect it positively or negatively with regard to change or survival?



More irony. The only person saying that is John Ruben and he's a maverick who, just like Feduccia (who thinks that birds evolved from different dinosaurs than theropods) is very much in the minority.

{snip more irony}

In all your arguments, you are arguing with fellow evolutionists. You also never cite anything, just keep saying its not true. When I cite you call it quote mining, when I post links and quotes its cut and pasting walls of (whatever). The one time I don't cite you ask me for one.

I do appreciate your contrary position as it brings attention to the differences in thought. The reader can then do some research on their own. I am not saying I am right on all points. I am pointing out that there are a lot of scientists who dissagree on many points. This so called fact consensus, is far from it.

 

[Davian]

I think we've been quote mined and trolled boys. Whad'ya think?

Kind of reminds me of the Weitzenhoffer quote. I'll see if I can track it down.

Found it:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer​

 

[idscience]

Look, it's eye used to be a little bluer, it has evolved!!! whaaahooooo!! What can those Christian's say now.

 

[Davian]

Look, it's eye used to be a little bluer, it has evolved!!! whaaahooooo!! What can those Christian's say now.

It would appear that you've nailed it, CaliforniaSun. I was looking for just such an opportunity to use that picture.

 

[Split Rock]

Didier Raoult is an eminent scientist at the University of Aix-Marseille in France. He leads of a team of 200 scientists and students. "Science" wrote an article about him this week calling him;

• "the most productive and influential microbiologist in France"

Raoult doubts Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact he wrote a "popular" and controversial science book that;

• "flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong."

What did his boldness get him? He was stifled by leading journals.

• "he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006."

This 59 year old scientists seems to walk his own line. One inline with the evidence he sees. There is always a price for integrity. Unfortunately, when your in the world of evolutionary biology, that price is censorship, and oppression.

For those interested in the truth about Didier Raoult, you can read about it in Science (2012) vol 335 (no. 6072): 1033-1035: "Sound and fury in the microbiology lab."- Michael Balter.

1: Raoult is not an IDer. He does not reject evolution.

2: Raoult believes that gene exchange (ie Gene Flow) has been more important in evolution than Natural Selection has been. He thinks the popular branching tree of life originated by Darwin should be replaced by a network of interconnected species.

3: Raoult and other authors of a paper on a mouse model for typhus were banned from publishing in ASM journals for one year because a paper they published with them had incorrect data. Other authors accepted the responsibility and the temporary ban. Raoult on the other hand, responded by quitting the society and banning his lab from publishing in ASM journals.

Either you are deliberately spreading falsehoods here or have been hoodwinked by your ID sources. Which is it? Do you even care?

 

[CabVet]

Either you are deliberately spreading falsehoods here or have been hoodwinked by your ID sources. Which is it? Do you even care?

I say it is an "all of the above" situation, while these people are somewhat naive and misunderstand a lot of the science out there, they keep spreading falsehoods even when explicitly and completely refuted. But in either case, what I really think is that they don't care as long as they can convince the one or two that are willing to accept lies.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

It would appear that you've nailed it, CaliforniaSun. I was looking for just such an opportunity to use that picture.

Glad I could help.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

For those interested in the truth about Didier Raoult, you can read about it in Science (2012) vol 335 (no. 6072): 1033-1035: "Sound and fury in the microbiology lab."- Michael Balter.

1: Raoult is not an IDer. He does not reject evolution.

2: Raoult believes that gene exchange (ie Gene Flow) has been more important in evolution than Natural Selection has been. He thinks the popular branching tree of life originated by Darwin should be replaced by a network of interconnected species.

3: Raoult and other authors of a paper on a mouse model for typhus were banned from publishing in ASM journals for one year because a paper they published with them had incorrect data. Other authors accepted the responsibility and the temporary ban. Raoult on the other hand, responded by quitting the society and banning his lab from publishing in ASM journals.

Either you are deliberately spreading falsehoods here or have been hoodwinked by your ID sources. Which is it? Do you even care?

Thanks for sussing this out SR. I have yet to see JUST ONCE a cdesign proponentsist correctly interpret or relay the facts. It's just sad and pathetic. Which is why my default position for anything an IDer says is - WRONG.

 

[idscience]

For those interested in the truth about Didier Raoult, you can read about it in Science (2012) vol 335 (no. 6072): 1033-1035: "Sound and fury in the microbiology lab."- Michael Balter.

1: Raoult is not an IDer. He does not reject evolution.

2: Raoult believes that gene exchange (ie Gene Flow) has been more important in evolution than Natural Selection has been. He thinks the popular branching tree of life originated by Darwin should be replaced by a network of interconnected species.

3: Raoult and other authors of a paper on a mouse model for typhus were banned from publishing in ASM journals for one year because a paper they published with them had incorrect data. Other authors accepted the responsibility and the temporary ban. Raoult on the other hand, responded by quitting the society and banning his lab from publishing in ASM journals.

Either you are deliberately spreading falsehoods here or have been hoodwinked by your ID sources. Which is it? Do you even care?

Speaking of falsehoods, No where did I say he was An ID supporter. There are many scientists who dissent from Darwinian theology and but don't support ID.

You number 2 point, is evolution in a net shell. Natural selection vertical descent of biological information. Without these tenants, evolution hypothesis falls apart.

This is how the evolution lobby keeps the rhetoric going, by twisting statements, twisting evidence. Anything to keep everyone's eyes off the actual lack of evidence. Creating controversy about the controversy. The facts about this article are turned around from a scientist who was censored, who believes aspects of evolution are wrong, to look the ID'er wrongly claims ID support. Critical thinkers don't miss the deception.

Darwinists rarely actually answer anything, the tactic is to attach who ever is opposing their theology. In his book, Raoult calls Darwin a priest that modeled his tree after the bible.

So what have we learned about evolution lobby tactics? Watch what they say and how they say it. Disregard any comments about the messenger as that has nothing to do with the facts presented. For example, an arsonist saying fire is hot, would be rebutted by an evolutionist saying, "this guy just wants to destroy things, he's a criminal, look a judge even says so."

Don't be intimidated by the lengthy ranting about really nothing to do with the subject at hand. The louder, more obnoxious, and more personal they get, shows how weak the ground they are standing on is.

They say where there is smoke, there is fire! Well, evolution blows a lot of smoke. Ignore that and look for the fire.