Lines of Evidence

[stevevw]

The genome is destroying evolution, they just refuse to see.

What was once a claimed tree, is now being shown as merely individual bushes (Kinds), and soon even the claimed root connections will disappear as technology continues to advance.

PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

Mutation no longer an accepted cause of producing new species. All but given up in animal and plant husbandry, because it was found not to be a viable source. What was thought would save them, ends up destroying the theory.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

But of course eyes will be closed so the light needn't be seen.

As they look into the genomes of animals and humans they will discover more. They are finding more function than they thought. They are finding that there are more harmful mutations hidden within the genome. They have fought against any information stating that there is a lot of function to the genome and that mutations are not to harmful. Thats because a genome full of complexity and lots of info is harder to explain from random chance mutations building intertwined structures that have coded messages for life. They dont want to know about mutations causing to much damage. They want to focus on beneficial ones so that it supports the building of new creatures by adding new genetic information.

But as they investigate they are finding more and more evidence that makes it harder to explain how evolution can build all the animals that have ever lived. It is actually showing that there are designed structures and complex systems that are way beyond what we can build. Thats why its taking many years with the best brains and equipment in the world just to begin to understand whats going on with our genomes. If all the best brains cant figure things out then how can a random and chance process create all this life. It sort of gives evolution a god like status.

 

[SteveB28]

As they look into the genomes of animals and humans they will discover more. They are finding more function than they thought. They are finding that there are more harmful mutations hidden within the genome. They have fought against any information stating that there is a lot of function to the genome and that mutations are not to harmful. Thats because a genome full of complexity and lots of info is harder to explain from random chance mutations building intertwined structures that have coded messages for life. They dont want to know about mutations causing to much damage. They want to focus on beneficial ones so that it supports the building of new creatures by adding new genetic information.

But as they investigate they are finding more and more evidence that makes it harder to explain how evolution can build all the animals that have ever lived. It is actually showing that there are designed structures and complex systems that are way beyond what we can build. Thats why its taking many years with the best brains and equipment in the world just to begin to understand whats going on with our genomes. If all the best brains cant figure things out then how can a random and chance process create all this life. It sort of gives evolution a god like status.

Do you have any serious evidence, sir, to support those wild ramblings?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Whatever gave you the impression that I was involved in the classification process?

By the very fact you argue for it.

Where did I state this?

By arguing for evolution.

Where have I argued this?

By arguing for evolution.

What is this "truth" that you allude to?

That your entire classification system is falling apart, yet you want to avoid discussing it.

Provide a scientific, testable definition of what you mean by "kind" in this context.

Provide a scientific, testable definition of what you mean by "species" in this context. That's right, you can't, since they can't even classify two species that mate and produce fertile offspring correctly. Any definition you choose to give will be shown by your own classification to be irrelevent.

I saw why you were banned. You have inspired your own Urban Dictionary entry:

"In a discussion or debate forum, the tactic of breaking rules unrelated to the discussion at hand in order to invoke wrath of the moderators, with the resulting suspension/ban saving one from the embarrassment of having to carry on after having one's arguments completely dismantled. Also applies to trolls, as a means to an exit."

Urban Dictionary: Death by Mod

No, they like to pretty things up, but we both know the reason why was because they had no answers. As usual, I was the only one giving citations to actual science, while they just made the usual Fairie Dust claims. Go look, you will find not one single scientific reference in any single post they made. When they made a claim I always backed mine with scientific references, references which they had no answers to, as per all religious fanatics under any name they choose to go by.

They didn't want to talk about Kinetic Energy, didn't want to talk about the CMBR and the stoppage of the solar wind at the heliosphere. The heliosphere where Voyager disproved every single theory they had about it. All they wanted was the same as you. Confirmation of you and their beliefs, whether right or not.

The same here. You don't care what the science says, all you care about is that your beliefs are not disturbed and that others confirm it. The only problem here is that the moderators are not on your side or my side, but actually neutral, and so they will not help you on this site.

I challenge them to come here, where they don't have their pet moderators protecting them. And you are more than welcome to let them know. Here where things will be equal, and they won't be able to hide behind their pet moderators. They will not of course, because they know without their pet moderators to get rid of those they can't argue against, they have no argument at all. Because they sure can't argue science, being that not a single scientific reference will agree with what they claim. Without the moderators interjection, they would all be nothing and shown to worship nothing but Fairie Dust. Just as not a single scientific reference agrees with an evolutionary view. Scientific, not someones theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How are we ignoring it? i mentioned such gray areas here:

And yet you and I know for a fact where Poodles came from. There is no grey area involved, none at all. So why do you even attempt to bring that up? There is no doubt in the slightest the descent of Poodles, being man himself brought them about. No question, no doubt, no grey area in the slightest. No evading the clear line of descent from Kind after Kind, even if they are now incapable of mating through adaptation and variation with other breeds within that kind.

All you have done is simply proved my point being we all know exactly how it came about. Just as the capability to mate is not the only criteria when describing species, but you want to limit Kind to what you refuse to limit yourself to. Why is this????

EDIT: Kind after Kind, and we all know the Poodle is of the Canidae Kind. Kind after Kind, with only variation within that Kind. Never one Kind morphing into another, just becoming breeds and variations within the same Kind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As they look into the genomes of animals and humans they will discover more. They are finding more function than they thought. They are finding that there are more harmful mutations hidden within the genome. They have fought against any information stating that there is a lot of function to the genome and that mutations are not to harmful. Thats because a genome full of complexity and lots of info is harder to explain from random chance mutations building intertwined structures that have coded messages for life. They dont want to know about mutations causing to much damage. They want to focus on beneficial ones so that it supports the building of new creatures by adding new genetic information.

But as they investigate they are finding more and more evidence that makes it harder to explain how evolution can build all the animals that have ever lived. It is actually showing that there are designed structures and complex systems that are way beyond what we can build. Thats why its taking many years with the best brains and equipment in the world just to begin to understand whats going on with our genomes. If all the best brains cant figure things out then how can a random and chance process create all this life. It sort of gives evolution a god like status.

And don't forget that 98% junk DNA they know nothing of, yet assure everyone it has nothing to do with anything.

Just tells me they only have a very small clue as to what 2% of the genome actually does, and that they base a theory on 2% of the whole, while ignoring as usual the other 98%. Man, we could almost be talking about cosmology instead of evolution, they do the same there, except ignore 99% of it instead of 98%.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you have any serious evidence, sir, to support those wild ramblings?

Noncoding DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct (revert the mutated sequence back to its original state) mutations."

Do you have any serious evidence, sir, to support any claim of evolution?? Because I can assure you, none of it will say what you claim it says.

 

[[serious]]

EDIT: Kind after Kind, and we all know the Poodle is of the Canidae Kind. Kind after Kind, with only variation within that Kind. Never one Kind morphing into another, just becoming breeds and variations within the same Kind.

I agree. Chihuahuas, poodles and great danes might have developed different sizes, but they are still all dogs. Dogs are always the dog kind.

But let's go further:

A eukaryote (has a nucleus) might develop a true multicellular colony organism, but it's still a eukaryote.
A multicellular organism might develop bilateral symmetry, but it's a multicellular eukaryote.
A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a hollow nerve cord (vertebrate) but it's still a A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote
a vertebrate bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a calcified internal skeleton, but it's still, well, you get the picture.
Go through that same thing with:
a jaw
4 limbs
lungs
amniotic eggs
hair
opposable thumbs
bipedal locomotion
etc.

Kind after kind describes evolution just fine.

 

[Davian]

By the very fact you argue for it.

I made no argument, I only pointed out your error.

By arguing for evolution.

Where have I done that?

By arguing for evolution.

Where have I done that?

That your entire classification system is falling apart, yet you want to avoid discussing it.

"The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism - G.R. Morton

In recent reading, Dembski and other ID proponents make the claim that evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 185 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 50 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order."

Demise of Evolution?

Provide a scientific, testable definition of what you mean by "species" in this context.

I knew you couldn't define "kind", so you try to turn things around.

That's right, you can't, since they can't even classify two species that mate and produce fertile offspring correctly. Any definition you choose to give will be shown by your own classification to be irrelevent.

I was not aware that I had classification system.

No, they like to pretty things up, but we both know the reason why was because they had no answers. As usual, I was the only one giving citations to actual science, while they just made the usual Fairie Dust claims. Go look, you will find not one single scientific reference in any single post they made. When they made a claim I always backed mine with scientific references, references which they had no answers to, as per all religious fanatics under any name they choose to go by.

They didn't want to talk about Kinetic Energy, didn't want to talk about the CMBR and the stoppage of the solar wind at the heliosphere. The heliosphere where Voyager disproved every single theory they had about it. All they wanted was the same as you. Confirmation of you and their beliefs, whether right or not.

The same here. You don't care what the science says, all you care about is that your beliefs are not disturbed and that others confirm it. The only problem here is that the moderators are not on your side or my side, but actually neutral, and so they will not help you on this site.

I challenge them to come here, where they don't have their pet moderators protecting them. And you are more than welcome to let them know. Here where things will be equal, and they won't be able to hide behind their pet moderators. They will not of course, because they know without their pet moderators to get rid of those they can't argue against, they have no argument at all. Because they sure can't argue science, being that not a single scientific reference will agree with what they claim. Without the moderators interjection, they would all be nothing and shown to worship nothing but Fairie Dust. Just as not a single scientific reference agrees with an evolutionary view. Scientific, not someones theory.

lol. You just keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

 

[stevevw]

Do you have any serious evidence, sir, to support those wild ramblings?

I thought you would have known these things by now. But if you dont look for the evidence then you wont see it. Some choose just not to see it even when they look.

Heres a couple for showing that there maybe more harmful mutations hidden in our genomes than scientists thought. This may mean that mutations carry more of a harmful effect than they thought. So maybe any so called beneficial mutations which are rare to begin with may also come at a cost of overall fitness. Or there are just more harmful mutations than previously though which is what some have been saying. Other studies say that our genomes are gradually deteriorating as we accumulate more and more mutations.So it casts doubt on the role mutations can play in constructing complex creatures. It makes it harder to believe that mutations which are primarily harmful and rare can create all of complex life. Its like beauty and complex design comes from a process of mistakes and chance.

Now that genetic sequencing and other technologies have made it easier to recognize mutations that occur in only a subset of cells, researchers are finding more and more harmful mutations hidden among unaffected cells. These findings suggest that in some cases, standard genetic tests in the clinic may be overlooking the underlying cause of genetic disease and underestimating a person's risk of passing such mutations on to their children.
Harmful mutations can fly under the radar
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences
of human mutation.
Most Mutations in the Human Genome are Recent and Probably Harmful | DiscoverMagazine.com

Cornell Geneticist John Sanford argued that Darwinism is wrong because the rate of genetic deterioration is so high that natural selection could not arrest it. If natural selection cannot arrest genetic deterioration, how then could it be the mechanism for evolutionary improvement?
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation

Heres some for showing how the genome is far more complex and has far more function than scientists thought.

This link from nature talks about how some evolutionists are always acting surprised and hold back from celebrating the new discoveries about how the genome is now found to be way more complex. It is showing that the way evolutionists have tried to make a simple picture for evolution is becoming much harder to explain with all the complexity being discovered.
The more complex picture now emerging raises difficult questions that this outsider knows he can barely discern. But I can tell that the usual tidy tale of how 'DNA makes RNA makes protein' is sanitized to the point of distortion. Instead of occasional, muted confessions from genomics boosters and popularizers of evolution that the story has turned out to be a little more complex, there should be a bolder admission -- indeed a celebration -- of the known unknowns.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html

In fact proponents of ID have been predicting for years that our genomes would turn out to be far more complex and show way more function than evolutionists have admitted. Each and every step along the way there have been arguments and objections against there being more function in the non coding sections of our genome which they have said was full of junk. The more that junk turns out to be complex and functional the more it supports design.

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. Considering that Kbl2 and BioF2 are judged to be close homologs by the usual similarity measures, this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution.
Axe

 

[SteveB28]

I thought you would have known these things by now. But if you dont look for the evidence then you wont see it. Some choose just not to see it even when they look.

Heres a couple for showing that there maybe more harmful mutations hidden in our genomes than scientists thought. This may mean that mutations carry more of a harmful effect than they thought. So maybe any so called beneficial mutations which are rare to begin with may also come at a cost of overall fitness. Or there are just more harmful mutations than previously though which is what some have been saying. Other studies say that our genomes are gradually deteriorating as we accumulate more and more mutations.So it casts doubt on the role mutations can play in constructing complex creatures. It makes it harder to believe that mutations which are primarily harmful and rare can create all of complex life. Its like beauty and complex design comes from a process of mistakes and chance.

Now that genetic sequencing and other technologies have made it easier to recognize mutations that occur in only a subset of cells, researchers are finding more and more harmful mutations hidden among unaffected cells. These findings suggest that in some cases, standard genetic tests in the clinic may be overlooking the underlying cause of genetic disease and underestimating a person's risk of passing such mutations on to their children.
Harmful mutations can fly under the radar
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences
of human mutation.
Most Mutations in the Human Genome are Recent and Probably Harmful | DiscoverMagazine.com

Cornell Geneticist John Sanford argued that Darwinism is wrong because the rate of genetic deterioration is so high that natural selection could not arrest it. If natural selection cannot arrest genetic deterioration, how then could it be the mechanism for evolutionary improvement?
Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation

Heres some for showing how the genome is far more complex and has far more function than scientists thought.

This link from nature talks about how some evolutionists are always acting surprised and hold back from celebrating the new discoveries about how the genome is now found to be way more complex. It is showing that the way evolutionists have tried to make a simple picture for evolution is becoming much harder to explain with all the complexity being discovered.
The more complex picture now emerging raises difficult questions that this outsider knows he can barely discern. But I can tell that the usual tidy tale of how 'DNA makes RNA makes protein' is sanitized to the point of distortion. Instead of occasional, muted confessions from genomics boosters and popularizers of evolution that the story has turned out to be a little more complex, there should be a bolder admission -- indeed a celebration -- of the known unknowns.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html

In fact proponents of ID have been predicting for years that our genomes would turn out to be far more complex and show way more function than evolutionists have admitted. Each and every step along the way there have been arguments and objections against there being more function in the non coding sections of our genome which they have said was full of junk. The more that junk turns out to be complex and functional the more it supports design.

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. Considering that Kbl2 and BioF2 are judged to be close homologs by the usual similarity measures, this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution.
Axe

Excuse me, but you are avoiding. Where is your evidence that biological researchers are deliberately hiding evidence of harmful mutations, as you claimed?

 

[Zosimus]

You might try cutting those bones apart, but then they are too precious for actual science aren't they? In a mere few years one of your own has thrown your entire decent into disarray,...

By "one of your own" do you mean a fellow philosopher or a fellow GMAT teacher? I got confused.

...and this with just the study of a few main ones in North America. How many other incorrect classifications are yet to be discovered when they are looked at scientifically? How many more paths of decent will crumble before your eyes, while you close them so you do not have to see?

Are you sure you're replying to the right person?

The same problem exists with Kind's as does with species. What applies to one, may not apply to the other. Yet some want to use that strawman as a reason to dismiss Kinds, while ignoring that same problem so they can accept species. They choose when to close their eyes so they need not recognize the same problem in their own house they complain about another.

Interesting, but I cannot do more but make the same challenge to you as I do to the species people. Please provide me with a clear, meaningful, and universally-accepted definition of the word "kind" as used in this sense.

Red wolves, grey wolves, no different than black man and white man, Chinese or Indian.

Not a complete sentence. The correct idiom is "different from" not "different than."

Just different breeds within the same Kind. If like in the wild white and black rarely mated because survivability favors those of the same breed, in 10,000 years white and black might no longer be able to interbreed, yet we would still know they were of the same Kind.

Interesting. So you feel that lack of ability to interbreed does not necessarily mean that two animals are of a different kind. How can you determine what kind any specific animal belongs to?

Yet you don't classify black man, white man, chinese man, or indian man as different species, because you know you can't.

Well, I think if I started classifying those of African descent as non-human, they might become offended. My wife, as chance would have it, is 25 percent black, 75% Latina. She might be very offended.

It's funny how those that favor evolution point to dogs, when dogs are the biggest obstacle to evolution. Being that in a few thousand years we have breed what would have taken nature hundreds of millions of years to produce. yet we still classify them as the same Kind - Canidae.

By requirement any changes due to natural events are merely infraspecific taxa. Evolution demands only one original species, with everything else being merely a subset thereof.

No, evolution merely postulates a chance in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation. What you are describing is Darwinism.

According to that very theory the classification system is no longer valid.

I don't think that idea would bother most neo-Darwinists considering that the classification system was invented by Christians.

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Where did this quote come from and why is it relevant?

Only with those who believe in evolution are those specific locally adapted traits claimed to make new species, even if their own theory requires they all be merely infraspecific taxa such as subspecies, varieties, subvarieties and formae.

So from the very first formation of life (a species) all else is merely a subdivision thereof from locally adapted traits. Yet this is not what is followed, even if required by that very theory. If evolutionists will not even follow what they believe, why should anyone else even consider it as viable?

Consider as is the wrong idiom. We say "I consider you a friend" not "I consider you as a friend."

 

[Split Rock]

EDIT: Kind after Kind, and we all know the Poodle is of the Canidae Kind. Kind after Kind, with only variation within that Kind. Never one Kind morphing into another, just becoming breeds and variations within the same Kind.

That is the Canidae Family not "Kind." As is usual with your "Kind" definition, all of life on the planet is made up of one of only three "Kinds," and we are the Eukaryote "Kind." Our ancestors going back millions of years were all Eukaryotes, just like us. To quote you: Never one Kind morphing into another, just becoming breeds and variations within the same Kind. I do not understand how you use this definition to claim that common descent is wrong, when it just reinforces it.

 

[stevevw]

Excuse me, but you are avoiding. Where is your evidence that biological researchers are deliberately hiding evidence of harmful mutations, as you claimed?

Oh Ok I didnt realize that. You weren't very specific. So you agree with the evidence you just want to know why some scientists resist admitting that what that evidence shows.

First off I would have thought that goes without saying. Its common sense that any evolutionists will resist acknowledging most claims from ID supporters. They will not like the idea of any evidence showing support for ID. This is seen by the fact that we have so much debate on the subject and we hear of both sides denying the evidence for each. So it stands to reason. But to be more specific I will cite a few examples.

The link I posted in my last reply had some evidence if you read it properly.

Yet, while specialists debate what the latest findings mean, the rhetoric of popular discussions of DNA, genomics and evolution remains largely unchanged, and the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever.

The more complex picture now emerging raises difficult questions that this outsider knows he can barely discern. But I can tell that the usual tidy tale of how 'DNA makes RNA makes protein' is sanitized to the point of distortion. Instead of occasional, muted confessions from genomics boosters and popularizers of evolution that the story has turned out to be a little more complex, there should be a bolder admission — indeed a celebration — of the known unknowns.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html
As I said before what this paper is saying is that there is not enough admittance and acknowledgement of how things are becoming more complex. Of how evolutionists dont know what mechanisms are driving the creation of life. The old confident story presented that evolution is a fact is and the models that have been presented for years are all proven are still presented. But there is a change that many are not acknowledging that is showing that maybe they are wrong about things and they dont really know the true causes that drive evolution or that what they believed are the causes are even true.

This article in scientific America elaborates on the Nature paper.
Why this apparent reluctance to acknowledge the complexity? One roadblock may be sentimentality. Biology is so complicated that it may be deeply painful for some to relinquish the promise of an elegant core mechanism.

Then there is the discomfort of all this uncertainty following the rhetoric surrounding the Human Genome Project, which seemed to promise, among other things, 'the instructions to make a human'. It is one thing to revise our ideas about the cosmos, another to admit that we are not as close to understanding ourselves as we thought.

There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it. Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones.
DNA at 60: Still Much to Learn - Scientific American
"We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live": More on Philip Ball in <em>Nature</em> - Evolution News & Views

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the specter of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment
Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7486/full/nature12786.html
How science goes wrong
Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong | The Economist
Bias In the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary And Personal Account
Bias In the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary And Personal Account | Watts Up With That?

Another example is with the topic of junk DNA. Scientists have baulked nearly every step of the way to acknowledge that the so called junk DNA has more function than first thought. You can go back through articles to show this. ID proponents have kept saying that there is more function and evolutionists have kept saying no there isn't or there is very little. But as time has gone on it has been shown to be having more function. This is happening with a number of topics like Dino bone tissue, the fossil records and genetics in general such as HGT, epigenetics and the tree of life.

This is a natural thing to do when there is two sides to the debate and people that believe in ID do the same. The thing is evolutionists always keep saying that we are wrong and and that science always just seeks the truth. But the fact is there are humans behind that science who are susceptible to being bias and promoting their own agenda as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since macro evolution is a "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa" one cannot claim that macro evolution occurs until the species problem is solved.

The only problem is yours. If evolution is true, then speciation should never be a quantum event. Instead, it should be a continuous event with an incipient stage that is difficult to distinguish from full speciation.

Like many who deny evolution, you expect evolution to do things it just won't do. The reason that there is a species problem is because of macroevolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh Ok I didnt realize that. You weren't very specific. So you agree with the evidence you just want to know why some scientists resist admitting that what that evidence shows.

There are tons of papers written about deleterious mutations. What are you on about?

First off I would have thought that goes without saying. Its common sense that any evolutionists will resist acknowledging most claims from ID supporters. They will not like the idea of any evidence showing support for ID. This is seen by the fact that we have so much debate on the subject and we hear of both sides denying the evidence for each. So it stands to reason. But to be more specific I will cite a few examples.

The link I posted in my last reply had some evidence if you read it properly.

Yet, while specialists debate what the latest findings mean, the rhetoric of popular discussions of DNA, genomics and evolution remains largely unchanged, and the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever.

The more complex picture now emerging raises difficult questions that this outsider knows he can barely discern. But I can tell that the usual tidy tale of how 'DNA makes RNA makes protein' is sanitized to the point of distortion. Instead of occasional, muted confessions from genomics boosters and popularizers of evolution that the story has turned out to be a little more complex, there should be a bolder admission — indeed a celebration — of the known unknowns.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html
As I said before what this paper is saying is that there is not enough admittance and acknowledgement of how things are becoming more complex. Of how evolutionists dont know what mechanisms are driving the creation of life. The old confident story presented that evolution is a fact is and the models that have been presented for years are all proven are still presented. But there is a change that many are not acknowledging that is showing that maybe they are wrong about things and they dont really know the true causes that drive evolution or that what they believed are the causes are even true.

This article in scientific America elaborates on the Nature paper.
Why this apparent reluctance to acknowledge the complexity? One roadblock may be sentimentality. Biology is so complicated that it may be deeply painful for some to relinquish the promise of an elegant core mechanism.

Then there is the discomfort of all this uncertainty following the rhetoric surrounding the Human Genome Project, which seemed to promise, among other things, 'the instructions to make a human'. It is one thing to revise our ideas about the cosmos, another to admit that we are not as close to understanding ourselves as we thought.

There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it. Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones.
DNA at 60: Still Much to Learn - Scientific American
"We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live": More on Philip Ball in <em>Nature</em> - Evolution News & Views

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the specter of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment
Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7486/full/nature12786.html
How science goes wrong
Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong | The Economist
Bias In the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary And Personal Account
Bias In the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary And Personal Account | Watts Up With That?

How does any of that support creationism or ID?

Another example is with the topic of junk DNA. Scientists have baulked nearly every step of the way to acknowledge that the so called junk DNA has more function than first thought.

Using that definition of functional, a broken TV would still be functional by the fact that it can still gather dust. The problem is defining functional in an extremely broad manner so that it includes junk DNA which has no impact on the fitness of the organisms.

You can go back through articles to show this. ID proponents have kept saying that there is more function and evolutionists have kept saying no there isn't or there is very little. But as time has gone on it has been shown to be having more function. This is happening with a number of topics like Dino bone tissue, the fossil records and genetics in general such as HGT, epigenetics and the tree of life.

How do ID proponents explain the fact that these supposedly functional stretches of DNA accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift?

 

[Split Rock]

Another example is with the topic of junk DNA. Scientists have baulked nearly every step of the way to acknowledge that the so called junk DNA has more function than first thought. You can go back through articles to show this. ID proponents have kept saying that there is more function and evolutionists have kept saying no there isn't or there is very little. But as time has gone on it has been shown to be having more function. This is happening with a number of topics like Dino bone tissue, the fossil records and genetics in general such as HGT, epigenetics and the tree of life.

Transposons do have real effects, such as with maize kernel coloration that Barbara McClintock studied back in the late 1940s. Just how important such "junk" DNA is in cell function and evolution is not clear. Even if 80% of the genome is transcribed, it is not clear how much of that is functional. What I don't understand is why this is evidence of I.D. Why couldn't the designer use function-less sequences in his design? For example, he/she/it/them could have used spacers between functional sequences for reasons of ease of construction of the genome... or perhaps they were necessary for the mechanism of construction. As usual, I.D. doesn't make any real testable predictions.

 

[Split Rock]

How do ID proponents explain the fact that these supposedly functional stretches of DNA accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift?

This is a very good point. I do believe some of this "junk DNA" is functional, but how much is unclear. I also don't see a function for all DNA as a prediction of I.D.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Zosimus]

The only problem is yours. If evolution is true, then speciation should never be a quantum event. Instead, it should be a continuous event with an incipient stage that is difficult to distinguish from full speciation.

Like many who deny evolution, you expect evolution to do things it just won't do. The reason that there is a species problem is because of macroevolution.

I deny evolution? Show me one post in which I have claimed that the frequency of alleles remains firmly constant from generation to generation. I dare say you won't be able to show any such post.

What I have said, and I firmly reiterate, is that it is impossible to determine whether macroevolution occurs. I often hear it banded about here that it has been observed, but no one can even successfully define what it is that we have supposedly observed.

There are no compelling reasons to believe in Darwinism. That doesn't mean that people don't believe in it. Plenty of people believe in astrology too. What does that prove?

 

[Ophiolite]

There are no compelling reasons to believe in Darwinism.

By Darwinism I take it you mean the Modern Synthesis, or such adaptations of it as have been appropriate to for the voluminous new evidence produced from many fields.

And you are right in one sense. Why indulge in a fatuous concept such as belief when one can accept evolution based upon the multiply validated experiments and observations that support it. Belief is for amateurish weather predictions and thoughts of which menu item may be tastier, not for something serious like evolution.

You believe whatever you like, I shall accept what the evidence points to.