250 thoughts on “What was the most significant scientific development in Intelligent Design in 2018?”

  5. vjtorley: I think ID theorists would say it was the publication of this book.

    That book seems to be nothing to do with Intelligent Design. Evolution can only break things, according to Behe. So what builds things?

    As Behe demonstrates, all empirical data point to the conclusion that evolution is only capable of producing minor alterations of existing designs but nothing truly novel. Evolutionists must now to an even greater extent disconnect their grand narratives from empirical data and confine them to the realm of their unrestrained imaginations. Anyone interested in knowing the truth about the design/evolution debate will find Darwin Devolves a must read.

    Evolution did not do it? And that’s the most significant advance that ID has to offer?
    Why ID is the default explanation, as opposed to invisible pink unicorns, I’m sure won’t be mentioned.

  6. colewd: I think Ewerts dependency graph of life provided the most new original thought.

    What makes that a scientific thought? You’ve linked to a youtube video. Did that video get peer reviewed?

    Given that alleged scientific work, can you predict something that we don’t yet know the answer to?

  7. OMagain: That book seems to be nothing to do with Intelligent Design. Evolution can only break things, according to Behe. So what builds things?

    Good point. Another book on the inadequacies of evolutionary theory. Whoop-ti-doo.

  8. OMagain,

    Given that alleged scientific work, can you predict something that we don’t yet know the answer to?

    The study has been peer reviewed. The study shows that gene families follow a dependency graph that is used in software development. Winston tested the hypothesis in a similar fashion to how phylogenetic analysis tests common descent. The dependency graph favors for the data better than the tree or the null. This is similar to the data Salvador Cordova surfaced with the Venn diagram we called Sal’s flower but contains substantially more data. The study is new and needs development but it is indeed scientific and a real alternative to the common descent hypothesis.

    The paper was discussed at Peaceful Science where Ewert participated.

  9. Bill Basener’s presentation at the the International Conference on Conservation Biology.

    Right up there would be John Sanford’s presentation at the NIH by invitation of ID-sympathetic members of the NIH community.

    Next, the election of Brett Kavenaugh to the Supreme Court.

  10. stcordova: Next, the election of Brett Kavenaugh to the Supreme Court.

    I agree, that is one of the greatest scientific achievements in ID in 2018. Perhaps of all time. It’s certainly top 3.

    By the will of Orange Man!

  11. stcordova:
    Bill Basener’s presentation at the the International Conference on Conservation Biology.

    Right up there would be John Sanford’s presentation at the NIH by invitation of ID-sympathetic members of the NIH community.

    Next, the election of Brett Kavenaugh to the Supreme Court.

    Hey Sal,
    Can you link some videos?

    I must have missed the presentations or forgotten to view them…
    Thanks!

    BTW: how’s your progress in QM?

  13. In looking at revolutions, like the american revolution, its not great winning battles but how armies remaining in the field is itself a attrition of the wrong side.
    ID remaining a famous criticism every year is very unlikely unless it was winning a attrition of truth.
    Wrong ideas in science lose over time. Yet evolutionism starting with all the advantages but still run raged by a plucky movement is evidence its losing the intellectual attrition.
    One is watching the end of a untested hypothesis called evolution IN OUR TIME.
    ID is full of ideas and not frustrated one bit by the resistance. YEC even does better and has fantastic public presence.

  14. Robert Byers:
    In looking at revolutions, like the american revolution, its not great winning battles but how armies remaining in the field is itself a attrition of the wrong side.
    ID remaining a famous criticism every year is very unlikely unless it was winning a attrition of truth.
    Wrong ideas in science lose over time. Yet evolutionism starting with all the advantages but still run raged by a plucky movement is evidence its losing the intellectual attrition.
    One is watching the end of a untested hypothesis called evolution IN OUR TIME.
    ID is full of ideas and not frustrated one bit by the resistance. YEC even does better and has fantastic public presence.

    Tell us more, Bob! It seems you and the author of this OP have a lot in common…😂

  15. colewd: The study shows that gene families follow a dependency graph that is used in software development.

    Sure, if you cherry-pick your data and ignore the huge amount which doesn’t fit your claimed pattern. Typical ID “science” in other words.

  17. Rumraket: I agree, that is one of the greatest scientific achievements in ID in 2018. Perhaps of all time. It’s certainly top 3.

    😀

  18. Robert Byers,

    ID is full of ideas and not frustrated one bit by the resistance. YEC even does better and has fantastic public presence.

    Indeed. Not a great reflection on the public.

  19. I am not sure, but I think the greatest discovery in evolution in 2018 was how they were able to discover the gene for how dogs know to pee to mark their territory. I think that’s amazing. If you knock that gene out, they have no idea where to pee.

    Hold on a second, that didn’t happen in 2018 , I just dreamed it? Damn!

    Well, this year perhaps then. Allan has assured me it exists.

  20. phoodoo:
    I am not sure, but I think the greatest discovery in evolution in 2018 was how they were able to discover the gene for how dogs know to pee to mark their territory.I think that’s amazing.If you knock that gene out, they have no idea where to pee.

    Hold on a second, that didn’t happen in 2018 , I just dreamed it?Damn!

    Well, this year perhaps then.Allan has assured me it exists.

    I’m prepared to consider contrary evidence. What’s your alternative explanation? If the very common mammalian behaviour of scent-marking does not get passed on genetically, what causes it to be adopted? Quantum physics?

  21. Allan Miller: I’m prepared to consider contrary evidence. What’s your alternative explanation? If the very common mammalian behaviour of scent-marking does not get passed on genetically, what causes it to be adopted? Quantum physics?

    So you believe there is a gene for dogs knowing to pee to mark their territory?

    Or you think there is some other way for things to be passed on besides genes?

  22. phoodoo: So you believe there is a gene for dogs knowing to pee to mark their territory?

    Innate behaviour must be inherited. That it is stored in the gametes is a reasonable conclusion. How, is unanswered, as yet, I believe.

    Or you think there is some other way for things to be passed on besides genes?

    There’s no other plausible candidate (that isn’t imaginary).

  23. phoodoo: So you believe there is a gene for dogs knowing to pee to mark their territory?

    Or you think there is some other way for things to be passed on besides genes?

    Clearly, there is learning, but I think we can rule that out. Male dogs removed from the litter at 8 weeks have rarely seen the father, and can hardly learn the behaviour off each other. Like I say, I’m prepared to consider other mechanisms, but you haven’t really suggested one, just lol’d at the perfectly reasonable idea it’s genetic.

    What about deer? They have scent glands. What use would they be without the behaviour of rubbing them? How do they know they’ve got ’em, and what to do with them?

  24. Alan Fox: Innate behaviour must be inherited. That it is stored in the gametes is a reasonable conclusion. How, is unanswered, as yet, I believe.

    Or you think there is some other way for things to be passed on besides genes?There’s no other plausible candidate (that isn’t imaginary).

    You think there are enough genes in a dog or a deer or a human, to account for everything they know? Don’t forget we also need one gene for rolling your tongue, and one for how bushy your eyebrows will be, and another for eye color, and another deciding if you are gay or straight, and another for the shape of your widows peak…

    You might run out of genes soon.

    And each gene provides a selection advantage?

  25. phoodoo,

    phoodoo: You think there are enough genes in a dog or a deer or a human, to account for everything they know?

    No. Behaviour can be learned and modified, to an extent that seems species- dependent.

  26. phoodoo: Don’t forget we also need one gene for rolling your tongue, and one for how bushy your eyebrows will be, and another for eye color, and another deciding if you are gay or straight, and another for the shape of your widows peak…

    Not one-to-one.

  27. phoodoo: And each gene provides a selection advantage?

    Not necessarily, though there must be selective pressure for adaptation.

  28. Alan Fox: Not necessarily, though there must be selective pressure for adaptation.

    What does this mean?

    Some genes exist which give no selective advantage? How do we decide which ones those are and which ones aren’t?

    A gene for webbed toes, a gene for the shape of your fingernails, a gene for knowing how to move your vocal chords, a gene for eating…

    Still counting.

  30. Alan Fox:
    phoodoo,

    Selection acts on the phenotype, the whole organism.

    Haha…Yes, I have been telling you that for a long time.

    So every gene is a selective advantage and every gene isn’t a selective advantage. And a mutation to a gene doesn’t matter because mutations aren’t selected for, the whole phenotype is, so no such thing as mutation plus selection-only selection.

    What a humorous theory to try to sell.

  31. phoodoo: So every gene is a selective advantage and every gene isn’t a selective advantage. And a mutation to a gene doesn’t matter because mutations aren’t selected for, the whole phenotype is, so no such thing as mutation plus selection-only selection.

    No. The ensemble in the phenotype contribute to breeding success.

  32. phoodoo,

    A gene for the waves in your hair, a gene for your wisdom teeth, a gene for crying, a gene for art…

    Still counting…

  33. Alan Fox: No. The ensemble in the phenotype contribute to breeding success.

    Right, so genes aren’t selected for, so no advantageous genes, only advantageous organisms. So every organism is advantageous because it exists, and everything that exists is fit.

  35. Alan Fox:
    phoodoo,

    In its niche. Remember the niche, phoodoo, remember the niche!

    Is there a gene for the niche?

    If not, the niche can’t be selected for.

    But then again, no gene can be selected for, only organisms can be selected.

    And all organisms have been selected, because they exist.

  38. Alan Fox: phoodoo: So every gene is a selective advantage and every gene isn’t a selective advantage. And a mutation to a gene doesn’t matter because mutations aren’t selected for, the whole phenotype is, so no such thing as mutation plus selection-only selection.

    It must be painful.

  39. Alan Fox: Pleiotropy

    Selectional pleiotropy occurs when the resulting phenotype has many effects on fitness (depending on factors such as age and gender).

    The organism both survives and doesn’t survive presumably. Positive and negative fitness.

    Pleiotropic gene action can limit the rate of multivariate evolution when natural selection, sexual selection or artificial selection on one trait favors one allele, while selection on other traits favors a different allele.

    Funny that fitness thing is.

  40. phoodoo: Funny that fitness thing is.

    Differential breeding success depending on the genetic cards you get dealt and the niche you occupy. Do you mean odd or amusing?

  42. Alan Fox: Differential breeding success depending on the genetic cards you get dealt and the niche you occupy. Do youmean odd or amusing?

    And since selection doesn’t select for genes, its selects individuals, we can not assign fitness to a gene.

    Everything that exists is fit. Natural selection is not science, because it can’t be measured.

  45. phoodoo:
    phoodoo,

    A gene for the waves in your hair, a gene for your wisdom teeth, a gene for crying, a gene for art…

    Still counting…

    OK, so it’s a ‘design’ for the waves in your hair, for your wisdom teeth, etc … So how is that design implemented, if not genetically? Bearing in mind that it would be beyond moronic to say that genetic transmission means ‘a gene for this gross trait, a gene for that’.

    If inheritance is not genetic, what is it? Epigenetic? Is that less absurd? Or would you prefer the meaningless – ‘quantum physics’, perhaps. Or puppies just suck peeing out of the ether.

  46. So this is the great advance of ID this year – the absence of a complete genetic account of everything. Yeesh.

  47. Allan Miller:
    So this is the great advance of ID this year – the absence of a complete genetic account of everything. Yeesh.

    Let me know when they find that gene for dogs knowing where to pee. Perhaps this year.

    In the meantime, you are in a dead heat with ID.

  49. phoodoo: Let me know when they find that gene for dogs knowing where to pee.Perhaps this year.

    In the meantime, you are in a dead heat with ID.

    Yes, as I said in another post, the endeavour is to say ‘your theory is as shit as ours’. What a noble aspiration. Especially if your best shot is actually a question of genetics, not of evolution per se. “Your theory is as shit as ours, though I must confess I’m a bit clueless about it”. 🤣

    In a dead heat with a field with one journal containing 3 publications. Sure phoodoo, we’re neck and neck.

Leave a Reply