Design evidence # 111: The heart

[QUOTE] by lpetrich+++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, where does sonnikke get those numbers? Is he referring to some big list somewhere?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Who knows, I've been asking him for some time now and he isn't forthcoming with any answers.He claims I added another piece of evidence to that list (brilliant guy that I am). I asked if he'd at least tell me what number it was so I'd know the size of the list, but he wouldn't tell me... such ingratitude!holmes

[QUOTE]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The heart pumps approx. 2000 gallons of blood each day. Each heartbeat is perfect with valves preventing backflow, and specified chambers for specified functions. It is a wonderful testament to an Intelligent Designer who created in His divine wisdom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Each heartbeat is PERFECT? Wow, someone tell that to my doctor. I was born with a heart murmur where my valves allow for plenty of backflow.What a wonderful testament to an Intelligent Designer who created in His divine wisdom. [QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++
Topic: Design evidence # 111: The heart
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Nothing to see here folks, move along. If you've seen garbage once you've seen it a million times and we've already seen this garbage twice...holmes

[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well then Holmes, YOU of all people should appreciate how delicate and precise this system is, and how any flaw is detrimental.
Something that couldn't just gradually assemble itself, by random mutation and natural selection.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++How can there be a flaw if it is god's perfect handiwork (your claim)?The fact that there are flaws in hearts indicates their imperfection and why each heart is the result of natural processes... built up through a long chain of imperfect reproductions (altered by "random mutation", and weeded out through the imperfect process of "natural selection"). [QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you don't like the topic, nobody's holding a gun to your head.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I don't mind the topic. My problem is that your posts have nothing to do with the topic you say they do.I keep coming in hoping to see some "evidence for design" advanced from a scientific perspective (scientific evidence).Your posts are merely statements of belief, not evidence. You even say so when someone starts critiquing your evidence. Your "evidence" is so weak it doesn't even meet the criteria of ID theory.The point of forums are to discuss theories and evidence, which is what I hope to do. But you stop responding to earlier topics which you started (when you can't argue them properly) only to start a new topic with the exact same reasoning. That's bad form... or bad forum?What's worse is that your post for this topic is less coherent than for the other two topics (which you have not finished). Your reasoning here hinges on Platonic "ideals" and equivocation to make its point.Believe me, when people advance logic this bad it makes me wish they'd held a gun to my head instead.holmes

[QUOTE] zephan+++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, holmes, that there is one sure fire way to prove to yourself God doesn't exist. If you only had the balls.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I said I'd rather have had HIM put a gun to my head, than advance such painfully stupid logic.Kind of an "if you're going to kill me at least do it quickly rather than through the slow torture of painfully bad logic." I did not say that I'd rather kill myself.And if god does not exist, killing myself would prove nothing, not even to myself. In fact it won't prove anything to anyone else either. It will look just the same as any other death, and no one will be able to tell if I had a soul or where it went.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-06-2003]

[QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++
God's original perfect creation is degenerating because of the second law of thermodynamics, as you know.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is incorrect. Learn what the 2nd law means and what it refers to, then come back and explain how the earth is a closed system with no energy inputs, and how living beings are closed systems with no energy inputs. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++
Your(evo's) beloved "mutations" which are supposed to increase information and "create" new specified complexity, does the exact opposite. A heart flaw is a good example of the "wonders" of mutations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Who the hell said they "love" mutations? They are a description of an event that is seen, or inferred, and used as an explanation for change as seen in life across time.Most scientists say that mutations are not "wonderful" at all. Get a grip. This is pure ad hominem. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++
The very fact that we all aren't born with heart defects or many other defects, is evidence for initial design, since mutations upon mutations without intelligence would firstly not even exist, and secondly prove very deadly.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This was addressed by lpetrich. After learning about the 2nd law, please respond to his post as well. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The heart is incredible, the amount of work it does day in and day out. It's layout and design coupled with the interdependence on the brain and nervous system is very strong evidence of specified complexity.
http://www.leaderu.com/...ces/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have read Behe, I have read Wells, I have read Johnson, and I have read Dembski (including that passage you just cited). Regardless of my opinion on ID, you are WRONG.I came to this website looking for logical and scientific debate between ToE and ID theorists.This is because I think Behe has raised some issues (though minor) which could use some debate. Not to mention that Wells has done a good job outlining some really bad science done in the name of ToE (though that does not necessarily mean ToE itself is bad, and it certainly does not advance ID).This is why I took an interest in your posts. I thought they would be about ID theory. Unfortunately they are NOT.And more unfortunate than that your posts are typical of most posts from the "design" side of the debate. There is no logic, no evidence, and worse still there is no consistency.Behe is the ONLY scientist putting an effort into finding IC in systems and they are related purely to biochemical systems (did you even read his book). There has not been one bit of investigation into largescale functional systems (like the heart) and even Behe says this would have to be treated very carefully.I think this points out the very real danger ID poses to real science. Creationists that don't want anything to do with science or logic, simply grab their flag and wave it around as if it applies to EVERYTHING.Hahaha... the cardboard box Behe says scientists use to create their explanations, has been adopted by the ID/Creationists. Only they slap a big sticker saying "box by God" on the side.Sonnike... Behe believes in ToE! He has stated so very clearly. His concern is the origin of complex biochemical systems, not the changes which happen through time (and will happen he admits) to form things like hearts and nervous systems. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++
If you tried to give a step by step description of how the human heart might have evolved, what kind of story would that be?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++leptrich gave a nice example, though it is admittedly only a "possible" explanation based on plausible (ie known) mechanisms and should not be taken for the exact explanation.Now give me an ID explanation, even a "possible" one given plausible (ie understood) mechanisms.Why not ask Behe... he knows.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-06-2003]

[QUOTE] by shilohproject+++++++++++++++
Heart disease is the leading killer of women in America.
Does this tell us:...
3. The woman's place is to be submissive to her husband, which would lower her stress and make her well?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++That'll make a great public service ad campaign when Bush's "faith-based" medical system is in place."Women, lower yourself, and your stress will lower with you."holmes

[QUOTE] by peter+++++++++++++++++++++++
Your entire argument here is basically 'Irreduceable
Complexity'.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Actually this is not true. IC is more rigorous than the logic Sonnikke uses.In another thread Sonnikke admits that he does not use IC at all. He simply believes that if something is complex (not IC) you can logically assume that it has been made by somebody.This requires no logic or evidence at all, other than circular logic.I'm not saying IC is credible as a standard for inferring design, and I admit they share similar routes to that inferrence, but Sonnikke's reasoning is an insult to IC (which means it has to be REALLY BAD).holmes

[QUOTE] by sonnikke++++++
Holmes, why do you insist on misquoting me?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++Please name my numerous misquotes which you suggest with this statement. I certainly do not try to do so, and am willing to correct my errors when made aware of them. While I do have a sarcastic streak you repeatedly use ad hominem attacks on me which does not help me keep my tendencies in check. Please help me to help myself and refrain from the ad hominems.That said, I apologize for misunderstanding your position. Up until now you have not used true IC based ID theory. When I confronted you with this, your response which downplayed the importance of IC had me thinking you didn't use it at all.However, it is true to say that so far you have not used IC in the rigorous form that ID requires.While one may infer design using the loose form of IC that you use, it is hardly rigorous. Since my intention in these forums is to discuss true ID theory, I am not going to waste time delivering their arguments against your position. Read Behe's book (Darwin's Blackbox) and Dembski (any one where he discusses the build up of HIS IC theory). They shoot downn your arguments for "loose IC" just fine. [QUOTE] by sonnikke+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please explain how inferring design based on a complex system of interdependant parts, is circular logic.I would argue that this system is irreducibly complex.
If you take away the heart, the system breaks down.
If you take away the brain, the system breaks down.
If you remove the blood vessels, the system breaks down.
If you remove the nervous system, the system breaks down.They all have to be in place and working properly, or the system breaks down.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I believe someone has already explained this using Behe's own mousetrap analogy but I'll lay it out for you without the analogy.What you are looking at is an integrated system. You are also looking at a complex system. Without question if you remove a piece of an integrated system the system would break down. That is not true IC.IC takes into account the following fact about living systems: They are organic and have grown into the integrated system you see. They were not built just now, even if they may have been designed in the past.This phenomenon (of small groups of cells growing into large complex-integrated systems) has been going on for some time. The final form of these birth-growth cycles change over time. This is also undebatable.The position taken by "evos" is that this cycle (which is evident and undebatable) has been going on "from the beginning" and the changes within this cycle (influenced by the environment) are what accounts for the diversity of life and all the systems within any single entity.The position by ID theory is that certain systems cannot have developed through the process just described, thus creating the inferrence of our having been designed at some point rather than growing continuously, and this may be proven through IC. This is because an IC system MUST have formed all at once, or not at all, and the odds that all pieces happened to form all at once is astronomical (this is a rough description but good enough for here).Since you have said you are only talking about humans I will stick to them and your specific design argument.First of all, you have not described a "system" at all. Certainly a being will die, or the other systems shut down, if you "remove" one of the parts you are talking about, but what is the system you are describing except "staying alive?"Then again, you are not completely correct about the breakdown process anyway. Have you never heard of a brain dead person whose heart and blood, sometimes even the lungs, continue to function?Regardless, what you need to show is that the "life" system you describe, with integrated parts of heart, brain, blood, and nervous system (I'd argue this goes along with brain), must have been formed all at once or not at all.While I'd agree it would be ultra astronomical for all of these parts to have formed in one generation, you have not proven the first and most important part of the IC argument. That means this is not even a sloppy IC argument.You have simply said "without the one the other parts fall apart". I don't think anyone can disagree with that.And that's where the circularity comes from. You say "if Y then Z". And everyone will agree to Y so Z must be true. But in reality you have a hidden premise (X) which involves Z.I can rephrase your argument to make it clearer.The heart needs the brain which needs the nervous system which needs the blood vessels which need the heart, thus the system is highly integrated. This integration proves that the system grew together over long periods of time into the necessary form we have seen.You'd agree with the first part, but not the conclusion (and quite rightly), because the conclusion hinges on the hidden premise that evolution had taken place.If your argument functions in some other way, I am not seeing it. If I am wrong please elucidate.It is important for you to realize the "evos" do hold the advantage here. They are not positing anything different than what we see everyday. To automatically refuse to believe their position, or call their possible models "just so", you'd have to be saying you don't believe things reproduce and change through the reproduction cycle. I assume you believe this happens.Because of the strength of this evidence, you must either prove continuous cycles could not have occured, could not account for certain features (IC), or give proof for the existence of a being capable of designing living organims without using the designed objects as the proof.Behe ends his book by discussing "largescale" systems like the one you describe. He is not conclusive that such systems can be proven to be IC, and admits it becomes harder to prove the larger you get due to all the possible paths which could have been used to form them.Thus your attempt to escape lpetrich's accurate and very plausible method for the formation of the heart, by moving the goal posts to the larger life system, only made your job harder.And you can say "cute just-so" all you like, but that is purely ad hominem. The eye in specific has been written off as an IC system by Behe. He included it in his book but has admitted that formation theories are plausible enough that one cannot say its formation via these routes are impossible, or even improbable.holmes

[QUOTE] by peter++++++++++++
Yes that's what IC means ... remove a part and the system
stops operating in the way that it did.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I hope you got from my response to sonnikke, that that isn't what real IC is.Neither is it, "I cannot believe it formed that way."Used properly IC is "I can prove it could not have formed that way."The problem with ID Theory is that some people claim to use IC when they are not, and those within the ID camp who are so eager to use IC to prove something NOW that they accept insufficient proof.Both failures look pretty similar, but they are not the same.Whether anyone will ever be able to get the proof IC demands is debatable... and also problematic.holmes

quote:

---

In that case, at the present, IC should be backburnered until
such an example exists in a form which cannot be refuted.

---

I agree, and that's what I am interested in finding here. Are there any real ID theorists around here that are approaching this point?If the ID theorists (such as Behe and Wells) truly believe what they say, then they have to realize that while they have raised a legitimate and interesting question, they have jumped the gun by decades if not centuries in proclaiming they have found evidence.If the have faith (in their God as well as their theory), they ought to have a little bit more patience.holmes

quote:

---

Please explain your definition of ad hominem.

---

It is essentially "calling names." Up till this last post you have usually relied on "cute just-so" labelling to make your case against evolutionary theories.This is essentially nothing but name-calling, for there is no way to answer your argument except "is not."What you just posted is not name-calling. Stick with this method. In fact, adding "cute story" after your argument, as you just did, is fine because we now know your definition and can work with it.Q1. Please explain how you would test this theory.A: There is no need to "test this theory" unless you do not believe in reproduction and changes during reproduction. Birth defects do occur and while most are not beneficial, some are. since the described scenario involves known mechanisms it is a plausible explanation. Unless...Did you mean test the theory that this particular example was the case long ago? Sadly the only way this can be tested is by luck. We are dealing with slowly accumulating fossil records. We can look for such fossils all we want, but it will be chance which delivers any evidence in the end (especially internal structures of softbodied animals). This same problem haunts ID and creationist camps.Q2. Please explain how the worm originated.A: Irrelevant. The discussion is formation of the heart, not abiogenesis. You can duke it out with Behe on that one.Q3. Please explain by what law and mechanism an open circulatory system could transform itself into a closed system.A: Unless you know of a law that this explanation violates, there is no need for lpetrich to refer to a law at all. This criticism simply makes no sense.The mechanism request is valid and relatively easily answered. It may have started as an open system which slowly grew more self-contained (through overgrown flaps of skin) until it closed off completely.Q4. Please explain how a birth defect could "create" a whole new organ.A: It cannot all at once, or at least I would find that problematic. I don't believe lpetrich said this anywhere. Like a meandering river whose changes over time slowly create isolated oxbow lakes with their own environments, general organs may develop specialized sub organs or tissues which eventually function independently. This takes many generations.Q5. Please explain how the system transformed itself step-by-step, while remaining fully functional.A: Essentially he did, unless you need him to account for every precise flap of skin to create separate walls and valves. There was nothing here that was so controversial that it would not remain fully functional if included. The biggest "gap" would be the growth of an extra throat... how often would this occur in a way that would be useful and passed down?Q6. Please explain how this scenario translated into higher organisms in a step-by-step fashion.A: Interestingly you missed your chance to skewer his "story." He does not have to address how higher organisms came to be, since he is only talking about hearts at the moment, which could be passed down within and through species.However, I will skewer him for making the type of misstatement which Wells and co are proud to point out. The need of land animals for greater oxygen and dumping carbondioxide could not have driven the creation of separate subhearts. Unless evolution is teleologic this is impossible. It should have been stated that the formation of subhearts, improved blood flow (oxygen/CO2 issues),and thus allowed for greater capabilities and spread of land vertebrates.Q7. Please show what evidence there is for this theory.A: This is the same question as #1. My guess is this may be your way of asking for proof that this particular example was the way it happened in the past. May second answer for #1 above deals with that.In the end this is not a "just so" story, unless lpetrich claimed that this is exactly the way it happened. The fact is we don't know exactly what happened. His explanation is a plausible route given known mechanisms for biological change. It is certainly not controversial to say this circulatory change happened within a species.His example, as it pertains to its eventual presence in humans, does assume evolutionary style reproduction-change cycles (speciation). That is fine because it was asked how evolution could explain the heart. This is how evolutionary theory could explain the heart.If someone were to use this theoretical example to say "this explanation proves evolutionary theory is true",would be mistaken. That would be circular logic.lpetrich did not do that. His description is sound and only shows that evolutionary theory does provide explanatory mechanisms for development of the heart.It could be argued that it is a better argument for how the heart developed than Creationist models as it involves known mechanisms (basic reproduction-change cycles) and does not involve interventions by unknown entities using unknown mechanisms.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-20-2003]

quote:

---

How many beneficial "defects" do you know?
It is only plausible in the evo's mind because you have an extraordinary belief in extrapolating data from the miniscule to the astronomical.

---

I meant "defects" in the broader sense of not an exact copy based on the original. To be clearer I should have said mutations, of which most are defects and a small amount beneficial.Others have stated examples of very real beneficial mutations. What is your reply to this?Breeding and natural changes seen within species over time (microevolutionary mutations) is irrefutable. Neither is it miniscule. There have been a few macroevolutionary changes directly seen by man as well (mainly in plants it seems). It is not astronomical to make a theory that life has continued as it does now and that differences in species are the result of cummulative changes via ways that we have seen it change.In fact, it is to jump from the totally absent to the astronomical, to make the positive claim that (despite our known experiences) something totally out of our world of experience came and altered life in ways we have never seen and have no clue about.

quote:

---

I do love how that is the typical response from evo's.
"Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as
it is currently concieved..."

---

Lpetrich made it very simple for you to understand why abiogenesis is separate and distinct from evolution. This is why I said you should duke it out with Behe. Behe's criticisms hold more weight against abiogenesis than they do about any evolutionary change. This may very well be why Behe supports general evolutionary theory.That said, I agree in part with the quote you gave, specifically the part I left above, and have mentioned before that the low statistical probabilities for evolution (or abiogenesis) based on current understandings of biological mechanisms may very well point to the fact that we don't have a clear understanding of all biological mechanisms!Calculations are premature and not real science. Behe says this in his book. As an aside, can you produce a mathematical-statistical analysis for god. And I don't mean the long shots of other theories, I mean creating the same positive type of stats for God and creation that you demand evolutionary theory reach.As it is current conceptions within evolutionary theory are changing via new research, and so effecting those long shot probabilities all the time. Margulis has offered some very interesting possibilities which I have yet to hear ID theorists try to handle, other than to side with mutation-based evos (ahhh any port in a storm).

quote:

---

It is not easily answered. How does a system that "bathes" the internal organs with blood, create the necessary vessels and arches and force mechanisms to become closed, while at the same time remaining functioning. There would have to be so many intermediate steps, created by succesive beneficial mutations. The odds are simply zero for that to occur.

---

An excellent explanation has already been given, but I want to add that your response does not affect my criticism. What laws need to be invoked for such an answer? This suggests to me that you do not even know what a scientific law is, much less how they are used. This is not meant as an insult, it really does appear that way.

quote:

---

Re-read his story.

---

I did, I don't see any instantaneous generations involved. Let's pretend I did. Then his specific description would have been errant. So what? I proposed a meandering river analogy to express slow build up of changes over time within one system to create separate and distinct systems (while functionality is maintained). I meant it to aid your conceiving what he had said, but it can support the vaguer description I gave. What is your response?

quote:

---

I had a better diagram at work, but of course I can't find it now.
However, look at this diagram, it is not as simple as just growing an extra throat. The circulatory system is separate and elaborate.

---

lpetrich has given a valid explanation for this.

quote:

---

At an extremely basic, untestable, unprovable, level.
However, "A" for effort...is just too bad evolutionary science retsricts itself to entirely natural events, and thus misses out on exploring all the possible avenues...

---

Your implied method of scientific inquiry is pre-dark age and was rightly dicredited and excised during the enlightenment. I lampooned this method in my 2piR thread. What I find interesting is that in that thread you criticized evos for using this kind of logic, and now turn around to say its too bad they don't... or at least too bad they don't with repect to your theory because then they could gain so much.You really must find a philosophical position you like and stick with it. Frankly, given proven progress since the enlightenment, I'd lump the darkage stuff and stick with a winning mode of inquiry.By the way, your link showed astronomical ignorance of both science and two specific areas of research. SETI has nothing to do with DNA research. While I do agree that IF there was something that created or altered life it is possible there would be indications left behind, but DNA research is not trying to do this and not nearly advanced enough to try. I think it's ironic they used steve martin's "jerky" image to show someone making such a connection.Did I say ironic? I meant appropriate.holmes

quote:

---

(sidebar: please spare me the "it's not a biological organism, it can't pass on heritable traits, etc"..it's the same idea for illustration purposes).

---

It sure does sound ridiculous when you talk about something which doesn't grow, much less reproduce, changing for no reason whatsoever.And that isn't the only point on which your analogy falls apart. Your analogy is a single organism changing within itself. Evo does not suggest an individual organism would suddenly grow something new. It is only related to the reproductive process.If you wish to restrict my criticisms of your analogy, and insist it simply must be right (when it is not), then lets dump using it as it gets us nowhere.After all there is no need to use analogies, when there are real life things we can talk about.I have already outlined the problem you have to address.Biological organisms do reproduce, and change during reproduction. They have changed visibly, developing different characteristics. They do this on their own, usually when breeding populations become isolated, and may have this effect amplified through intentional breeding programs.Thus there is no question that (using your analogy) a tricycle may become more roomy or grow another wheel (or at least the newer models based off it may).This is called microevolution and I don't know anyone debating this.So why is it unreasonable to create an explanation based on the idea that these microevolutionary cycles, and the changes which occur within those cycles, produced all life as we see it now?I find the delineation between microevolution (which is not contested by ANYONE I know of) and macroevolution (disputed only by creationists), rather arbitrary and necessary of a better explanation (or story) than "I can't believe that story", and contentious analogies which usually involve nonreproductive organisms.By the way, my overall criticism still stands... there was no reason for mentioning scientific laws.

quote:

---

pre-dark age? please elaborate...
I'm sure there's a logical fallacy involved in this dark age stuff.

---

Okay, you are simply being deliberately obtuse. You and I have been discussing such issues over three different threads. Now here you feign ignorance? At the very least my "enlightenment" reference should have jogged your memory of what I am talking about.The darkage reference is not ad hominem (if that is the fallacy you were looking for). It is an accurate description (dating) of the method of scientific inquiry you were suggesting.It dates back to the Greeks (and probably before that), when most logic was deductive and so started with grand universal "truths" which were imposed on, or used as an a priori filter for, empirical experiences. This method was terribly susceptible to problems relating to circular logic, and has ultimately been abandonded for more fruitful methods of inquiry.

quote:

---

Yes I'm aware thank you. The link was to show that man is looking for intelligence in the wrong places, spending millions of dollars looking for any signs of intelligent life from outer space, whilst right here in our own world an incredibly intelligent "sign" has been found in the form of DNA.

---

Apparently you were not aware of what is wrong with that site, or at least not aware of what my criticisms of the site were, because you just repeated the ridiculous claims it made.Please explain how DNA is a sign of intelligent life, and how science is investigating DNA as a message from some other intelligence (alien or God).From what I understand the farthest we have gotten so far, is mapping the structure of DNA, which determines protein production in cells, and so during reproduction influences what a growing structure may end up as.We are not sure what every piece of DNA does, what mechanisms are used (much less how they came to be), and what exact role DNA plays in life. While we do know it is important, it is not clear that it is the ONLY important part of a living organism.Infact, if anything, DNA research has been uncovering more evidence which suggests that we are many organisms that have come to live together in symbiosis (support for Margulis' symbiogenesis). This may reduce the primary importance of DNA in shaping life (outside of the individual).And anyway, you are inconsistent in embracing the importance of DNA research and scientific inquiry when a "story" based loosely on that research seems to prove your point, yet denouncing that very research as "storytelling" when it seems to prove you wrong.

quote:

---

What I was saying was that just as man is not seeing the obvious in that respect, man is also not seeing the obvious (God's creation) as evidenced by the naturalistically limited search for answers to our existence.

---

Huh????? So the limits of our perceptive capabilities, specifically when combined with our temporal existence, is some sort of evidence for God?I can't believe that you do not see how circular your arguments are. As a scientist, you simply cannot start with a presuppostion, and then measure evidence by that presupposition.You rightly criticize evo scientists that have done so (ie, homology), why are you immune to this criticism?holmes

quote:

---

Are you sure you read Ipetrich's story, because his "lucky" worm grew a new throat. It didn't happen over many many generations apparantly.

---

Again, you have deliberately ignored my response to this issue in an earlier post. It is neither necessary to have grown it in one step, and even if lpetrich posited this and we say that is improbable, it only makes lpetrich's specific example problematic.Deal with the example without instantaneous growth of the whole second throat. Pretend I made it.

quote:

---

I know of no one debating microevolution, that is correct. My tricycle to car analogy was illustrative of macro-ev... wouldn't be that unreasonable IF we saw evidence that the little miniscule changes that are either horizontal or downward, could be extrapolated to astronomical changes, but that evidence was supposed to be in the rich fossil record, and it wasn't.

---

You can keep saying astronomical, and mathematicians can keep calculating long odds using our limited knowledge of mechanisms, but that does not change that we have ONLY seen continuing micro-ev changes and some limited macro evolutionary changes (remember the plants!).I'm still waiting for the less than astronomical calculated odds for intervention by a deity. Where are all these mathematicians with that scenario? The best they can do is calculate odds based on current mechanisms.The lack of transitional fossils has already been addressed by Gould and Eldredge. It is called punctuated equilibrium.Now please share one piece of positive evidence for the presence of God, angels, etc etc. Or an explanation for why we have no evidence.

quote:

---

How many years have they experimented on mutating flies? 20 years or so? We still only have flies right? right!
These mutations which are supposed to add the raw material for new organisms, do the opposite most of the time. And when they don't, they are neutral or horizontal.

---

I think this speaks for itself. We've only been experimenting for 20 years. They have already found reproductive isolation.If you mean purely genetic mutations (like adding wings) then please address Margulis (who you have still not responded to, like all IDers I have read).Specific mechanisms of evolutionary change are not well known. Margulis has challenged the mainstream held gene-mutation mechanism to some effect. Perhaps we won't be talking about gene-mutations as much 20 years from now. Maybe then we'll hear someone from the creation camp address the new research instead of using old quotes?

quote:

---

"To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability."
Cohen, I.L. (1984)
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities
New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81

---

That's why we still need to investigate mechanisms. Basic gene-mutation mechanisms may not be enough. Address Margulis.Where are Cohen's calculations on deity intervention? Perhaps entering unseen entities with unknown mechanisms into his formulas would fall into the same category of mocking logic and denying the weight of evidence.

quote:

---

Thanks for insulting me by the way...

---

If I said you were obtuse, that would be an insult. My stating that you are BEING obtuse, especially given the evidence of our correspondences on this subject, is an accurate characterization of your actions.

quote:

---

"grand universal truths"..."a priori"..you mean like uniformitarianism and natural occurences only??
Evolutionism isn't far from the greeks then, I suppose.

---

No. Please research how uniformitarianism came to be used as a functioning assumption. It did not involve any a priori reasoning, and it is not a grand universal truth. It allows for new evidence to shape science in general, including the negation of uniformitarianism as a functioning assumption (making it a conditional working assumption).The limitation of explanations of naturally occuring phenomena to natural explanations is also a working assumption. It's hard to call it a priori as it comes from the visible failure of deductive appeals to unseen (directly or indirectly) forces to explain natural phenomena. The entire weight of evidence has been for restricting explanations to natural phenomena.Some may use this as a grand universal truth in their lives (ala Dawkins famed "fulfilled atheist" quote) but it is hardly a grand universal truth in science. Mainly because deity intervention would suddenly become a "natural phenomena" if it entered the realm of experience. It merely works as a temporary filter to focus on the most probable causes first.Evolutionary theory may in some cases be considered deductive, since it is based on applying currently known mechanisms to the past. However it admits evidence from the past which is able to counter current assumptions. Punctuated Equilibrium is a fossil-based example, Margulis is a contemporary research based example.

quote:

---

Let me ask you something, what if God really did create life and the universe and the only "evolution" that has occurred since is MICRO...that creation event would have been supernatural correct? So if science really wanted the truth to be found, wouldn't it make sense to NOT limit itself to a priori reasoning and grand universal truth assumptions?? Seriously?

---

Science is not limited in the way you suggest. Once solid evidence comes in that macroevolutionary events are not possible through any naturally occuring mechanism, science would be forced to conclude microevolutionary events are the only natural (biological) events and that some non-biological event must have occured with regard to macro-ev.If God and creation were true, this should eventually occur.We are simply not anywhere near that point yet. In fact, there is highly suggestive evidence that macroevolutionary events do occur naturally in biological organisms (plants and insects).If creation were wholly supernatural, and so beyond any direct or indirect experience how else will its truth ever be discovered? Seriously?You would be unable to discern between religious creation events, without appeals to some sensory experience of some kind. You are inconsistent in demanding everyone accept your interpretation and not accepting everyone else's.What if lord Baal is god after all? Boy is he gonna be pissed, therefore believe in Baal, or don't create rules to exclude him.Everyone can play that game.Uniformitarianism and reliance on natural explanations ends that kind of game-playing, to get on with the search for truth. Baal or Jehovah will make their presence known through experience if they want to be known.

quote:

---

As far as the DNA example, again, it is just an illustration of how people can miss the forest for the trees.

---

Only in some vague, totally inaccurate analogy sort of way. But let's say its accurate, at least scientists are looking at trees.Some people miss forests by focusing on the gaps between the trees. Those people don't look at anything but empty air.holmes