ID is Dead (Again)

Posted on by

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

If that’s not enough to convince the reader that Elizabeth is no prophet, there’s aways other things we can point to.

UD is still chugging along, as is the Discovery Institute. Michael Denton has a new book coming out soon, as does Douglas Axe. BIO-Complexity continues to publish. More of the incredible design of the living world is being revealed daily.

ID Is Dead. But perhaps like the proverbial cat it has more than one life.

451 thoughts on “ID is Dead (Again)”

  2. Alan Fox:

    Robin

    I know it’s a pain but as someone else is prone to claim “I already did” without a link, would it be unreasonable to suggest a link to the appropriate comment?

    Fair enough. Will do.

  3. Robin: Nope, no false accusation on my part. Your claim about evolution is a strawman as noted. You can either address it or your claims become invalid.

    Holy shit! So saying evolutionism is the claim that natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes produced the diversity of life from some unknown much simpler replicator, is a strawman?

    How many people agree with that accusation? Can anyone tell me what the strawman is?

  4. Alan Fox:
    Moved a post to guano. Accusing other members of dishonesty is against the rules.

    I can support my claim so it is more than an accusation.

  8. Frankie: I can support my claim so it is more than an accusation.

    You can’t support an accusation of lying because it requires you know a person’s state of mind. And it is wholly irrelevant anyway as an accusation of lying is against the rules. You can say someone is mistaken, even perversely so. You can’t accuse them of lying. And this discussion must move to either noyau or moderation issues. Further off-topic comments will move to guano.

  11. Frankie: Holy shit! So saying evolutionism is the claim that natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes produced the diversity of life from some unknown much simpler replicator, is a strawman?

    No, not what I posted Joe. Pay attention:

    ID is Dead (Again)

    How many people agree with that accusation? Can anyone tell me what the strawman is?

    False accusation Joe. Please try to address my comments and not what you think I’ve said.

  12. Frankie: Prove it

    He was not an evolutionary biologist, yet he was the father of evolutionism. He was the first person to discuss a large number of evolutionary problems, problems that before Buffon had not been raised by anybody…. he brought them to the attention of the scientific world.

    Except for Aristotle and Darwin, no other student of organisms [whole animals and plants] has had as far-reaching an influence.

    He brought the idea of evolution into the realm of science. He developed a concept of the “unity of type”, a precursor of comparative anatomy. More than anyone else, he was responsible for the acceptance of a long-time scale for the history of the earth. He was one of the first to imply that you get inheritance from your parents, in a description based on similarities between elephants and mammoths. And yet, he hindered evolution by his frequent endorsement of the immutability of species. He provided a criterion of species, fertility among members of a species, that was thought impregnable.”
    ― Ernst W. Mayr

    *My emphasis

  14. Robin: He was not an evolutionary biologist, yet he was the father of evolutionism.

    Evolutionism being one of many versions of successive replacement by improved creatures. A stepchild of catastrophism.

  15. Robin,

    Wait, fish are supposed to have given rise to fish-a-pods which gave rise to tetrapods. My test is obviously not a strawman if there is a way to test the claim.

  16. If it is all genetics then it should be very easy to manipulate fish embryos with targeted mutagenesis and eventually get a fish-a-pod to develop.

    Common Descent says that fish evolved into fish-a-pods which evolved into tetrapods. What I recommended is a test of that claim

  18. petrushka: Evolutionism being one of many versions of successive replacement by improved creatures. A stepchild of catastrophism.

    It is still evolutionism, just a more modern version

  20. Frankie: Wait, fish are supposed to have given rise to fish-a-pods which gave rise to tetrapods

    So, what actually happened – according to ID?

  21. Frankie: There isn’t anything in that paper that tells us how to test the claim that the BF, any BF, evolved via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes. To say otherwise would be a lie

    Strawman Joe.Evolution via natural selection, drift, and/or neutral change is not an hypothesis. The paper discusses (and supports) the hypothesis of natural selection and neutral adaptation that in order for complex systems to evolve, some components must be conserved and reused. This, coupled with literally thousands of other such research, demonstrates the validity of natural selection, drift, and/or neutral change.

  22. Robin: Strawman Joe.Evolution via natural selection, drift, and/or neutral change is not an hypothesis. The paper discusses (and supports) the hypothesis of natural selection and neutral adaptation that in order for complex systems to evolve, some components must be conserved and reused. This, coupled with literally thousands of other such research, demonstrates the validity of natural selection, drift, and/or neutral change.

    What a croc. If “Evolution via natural selection, drift, and/or neutral change is not an hypothesis”, then you have NOTHING because that is what evolutionism posits. You need a way to test the mechanisms.

    And your literature bluff is duly noted. How can papers support NS if no one knows how to test it?

  23. Frankie: And how am I using it any differently?

    LoL! AGAIN- I am telling you that the way I am using the word “evolutionism” is the same as Dawkins’ “blind watchmaker evolution”.

    Ernest is not referring to any “blind watchmaker evolution”.

  24. Robin:
    Ernest is not referring to any “blind watchmaker evolution”.

    Ernst, the name is Ernst, not Ernest. And again you are daft. Mayr is obviously referring to Darwinism which is blind watchmaker evolution

  25. Frankie:
    Robin,

    Wait, fish are supposed to have given rise to fish-a-pods which gave rise to tetrapods. My test is obviously not a strawman if there is a way to test the claim.

    Wrong Joe. Both fish and tetrapods have a common ancestor. Thus a given fish lineage, now long extinct, gave rise to tetrapods, but no amount of applying mutagens will generate tetrapods from modern fish.

  26. Robin: Wrong Joe. Both fish and tetrapods have a common ancestor. Thus a given fish lineage, now long extinct, gave rise to tetrapods, but no amount of applying mutagens will generate tetrapods from modern fish.

    So Common Descent doesn’t say that fish gave rise to fish-a-pods? So Tiktaalik is meaningless? Or are you daffy?

    But thanks for admitting Common Descent is untestable. Science requires repeatability…

  27. Frankie:
    If it is all genetics then it should be very easy to manipulate fish embryos with targeted mutagenesis and eventually get a fish-a-pod to develop.

    This is incorrect Joe. See above.

    Common Descent says that fish evolved into fish-a-pods which evolved into tetrapods.

    Citation please.

    What I recommended is a test of that claim

    Since that’s not an accurate claim as far as I can tell, there is no test to demonstrate it.

  28. Robin: This is incorrect Joe. See above.

    Citation please.

    Since that’s not an accurate claim as far as I can tell, there is no test to demonstrate it.

    Again Robin says that Tiktaalik was not a transitional organism. And again Robin admits we cannot objectively test Common Descent.

    Tell us robin, if fish didn’t give rise to fish-a-pods which gave rise to tetrapods, how did tetrapods arise in your little mind?

  29. Robin: If it is all genetics then it should be very easy to manipulate fish embryos

    Modern fish aren’t what we’re talking about.

  30. Frankie: What a croc. If “Evolution via natural selection, drift, and/or neutral change is not an hypothesis”, then you have NOTHING because that is what evolutionism posits. You need a way to test the mechanisms.

    No, we need to test hypotheses about the mechanisms. And that is precisely what I provided in the link.

    And your literature bluff is duly noted. How can papers support NS if no one knows how to test it?

    It is being tested Joe, by way of testing the hypotheses against the null…just like the link shows.

  31. Frankie: Again Robin says that Tiktaalik was not a transitional organism.

    False Joe. That’s not what I wrote at all. Please respond to what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

    And again Robin admits we cannot objectively test Common Descent.

    False again Joe. I didn’t state any such thing.

    Tell us robin, if fish didn’t give rise to fish-a-pods which gave rise to tetrapods, how did tetrapods arise in your little mind?

    I already responded to this:

    ID is Dead (Again)

  32. Robin,

    No, Robin, that article in no way, shape or form tested any hypothesis wrt natural selection being able to produce a BF. I have asked you, several times, to actually make a case and you have FAILED. All you do is to keep referencing the paper.

  34. Frankie: Saying fish a tetrapods share a common ancestor doesn’t say how tetrapods arose

    I think it gives vital information. What does ID say?

  36. Robin,

    but no amount of applying mutagens will generate tetrapods from modern fish.

    Why not and how do you know? And if not then the claim of “fish and tetrapods share a common ancestor” is untestable. And if you disagree do tell how we can so test the claim without assuming it

  38. Frankie:
    Robin,

    No, Robin, that article inno way, shape or form tested any hypothesis wrt natural selection being able to produce a BF.

    Strawman again Joe. It’s not my problem that you either don’t understand science or you are deliberately attempting to mislead. The link I provided does indeed address an hypothesis of NS.

  39. Robin: Strawman again Joe. It’s not my problem that you either don’t understand science or you are deliberately attempting to mislead. The link I provided does indeed address an hypothesis of NS.

    Your problem is you think you can bluff your way through a discussion. That you cannot make your case says it all. The link you provided in no way addresses a hypothesis of NS wrt to any BF.

  40. Frankie: It is all in your posts, Robin. Saying fish a tetrapods share a common ancestor doesn’t say how tetrapods arose

    I’m not about to post the entire evolutionary description of how tetrapods arose on this board Joe. If you want to understand that, read a textbook.

    That said, I’m also going to keep noting that your description that “tetrapods arose from fish” is a strawman however.

  41. Robin: I’m not about to post the entire evolutionary description of how tetrapods arose on this board Joe. If you want to understand that, read a textbook.

    That said, I’m also going to keep noting that your description that “tetrapods arose from fish” is a strawman however.

    I know what the current thinking is. You don’t appear to. And no, I did not say that tertapods arose from fish.

  42. Robin: I’m not about to post the entire evolutionary description of how tetrapods arose on this board Joe.

    Nor is Joe going to post an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. That’s a prediction, BTW;

  43. Frankie:
    Robin,

    Why not and how do you know?

    Read the literature on the evolution of tetrapods Joe. And while you’re at it, learn some biology.

    And if not then the claim of “fish and tetrapods share a common ancestor” is untestable.

    False Joe. The two are independent concepts.

    And if you disagree do tell how we can so test the claim without assuming it

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6899/full/nature00871.html

    http://www.livescience.com/728-common-ancestor-fish-land-animals.html

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02106050

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534700890047

  44. Alan Fox: Nor is Joe going to post an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. That’s a prediction, BTW;

    Common Design with the differences owing to the different requirements of different environments and the planet’s needs (as in all life). But this thread isn’t about that

  45. Robin: Read the literature on the evolution of tetrapods Joe. And while you’re at it, learn some biology.

    False Joe. The two are independent concepts.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6899/full/nature00871.html

    http://www.livescience.com/728-common-ancestor-fish-land-animals.html

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02106050

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534700890047

    A common design explains the similarities. There is no way to validate the claims of those papers. They all assume common descent.

  46. Robin,

    Read the literature on the evolution of tetrapods Joe.

    Read it. There isn’t anything that supports your claim

    And while you’re at it, learn some biology.

    I bet I know more than you

  47. Frankie: Common Design with the differences owing to the different requirements of different environments and the planet’s needs (as in all life).

    That is not even a coherent sentence, let alone any kind of summary of any sort of explanation. Not even a hint!

    But this thread isn’t about that

    I’d be interested in reading an OP from you about your particular Creationist alternative explanation for what we see.

  48. Frankie: A common design explains the similarities. There is no way to validate the claims of those papers. They all assume common descent.

    But if you assume common design, there is no way to validate your claims as they depend on papers that assume common descent.

  50. Frankie: I bet I know more than you

    Can you describe Tiktaalik? What sort of features did it have? What was special about it?

Leave a Reply