Summations Only

So your hypothesis is that a designer created all those different organisms independently and then they got buried in a massive, worldwide flood in a very specific pattern so that the progression of the bones from organisms buried deeper to organisms buried higher up in the column would appear to follow an evolutionary pathway? Isn't that kind of outlandish?The pattern of the evolution of the mammalian ear has very fine detail. It tracks through the geological column extremely well, meaning that you will always find the more derived forms ABOVE the less derived forms in the geological column - in the distinctive pattern outline by the diagrams presented. Why would you expect non-coding sequences to follow this pattern? Why would you expect simple sequence repeats to be informative as to population structure? Why would you expect basic housekeeping genes, such as Ribosomal RNA and cytochrome C, to be highly conserved across unrelated species and yet show patterns of differences that can be grouped into a nested hierarchy - and one that largely matches predictions based on morphology (which both of the genes mentioned have little to no direct effect on morphology). Why would there not be just 1, or at least a very small number, of each of these highly conserved housekeeping genes that is used across all species? Why does each species or group of species get their own unique sequence that is just a little bit different from their closest relatives?While you may be right that this doesn't prove anything against design, it is a very, very weak case FOR design. It is a much stronger argument for common descent (and as far as I am concerned, common descent does not preclude or exclude design or the existence of a designer).Now, if your argument is that the original organism was designed and then "microevolved" after that, the challenge then becomes delineating these original "designed" groups. The problem is that there are genetic, bio-geographical and morphological connections between many disparate groups. The delineation of these groups becomes very subjective and practically impossible to defend. Design may indeed be the best explanation for the "whole system," and I personally believe it is. But that is a completely different argument than the argument about evolution. Besides, it is a philosophical or metaphysical argument, not so much a scientific one unless one can present a method for testing it. The question being posed is "how does design account for the patterns we observe in nature, and in particular the patterns that look evolved?" The arguments thus far amount to nay-saying.HBD

This is how the process would have to work to go from a single mating pair to the diversity we have today in only 4,000 years. But not when there are hundreds or thousands of generations between fossil examples. But these "hidden" alleles have not been demonstrated. Neither is there any support to the genetic depletion hypothesis. Instead what we find is alleles within a given population that can be connected to a particular phenotype that do not exist in other populations - they are not hiding somewhere. We have also talked about this in previous discussions that there are some traits that for which there are too many different alleles that exist in a population and they could not have all existed in a single ancestral mating pair. So new alleles ARE being formed by mutation and those new alleles contribute to novel phenotypes. Part of the problem is you don't really understand how a phenotype is constructed from the DNA coding and when we have tried to have the discussion you complain that it is too complicated and I/we are being condescending and overly confusing the issue. But... it doesn't take millions of gene mutations to change a bone like that. It takes changes to the regulatory controls of those genes. Bones undergo ossification and the shape and position of the bone depend on where ossification starts and how long it is switched on for. Change one or both of those regulatory elements and you get a different bone shape - it is not always necessary to mutate coding regions.Also note that as the jaw transitioned from the reptile-type to the mammalian-type there was a point where both jaw joints were present. That is a weird thing to suggest indicates design. Would you consider fungicide resistance to be beneficial to a fungal pathogen? We have several examples of point mutations conferring fungicide resistance to several classes of fungicide. These mutations did not exist in the population 10 years ago. Now they are so prevalent that some fungicides are no longer useful for controlling disease.I think you mean to say something like: mutations cannot turn a reptile into a mammal even in a billion years. But that is not what the theory says happens - that is an over-simplification.HBD

Excellent argument.I would point out though that this argument is against a designer with "human-like" qualities or that would design things like humans do, not against any designer. I don't even think it disqualifies the potential designer as incompetent. Sure we can look at a lot of "design flaws" in living things, but it may be that we just don't see the purpose for a particular design - that is, it doesn't fit our human qualifications as a "good" design.What your argument does really well is it shows that using human designed objects and recognizing that they are actually designed does nothing to address design in nature. They do not have the same qualities at all.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

So far the methods you have presented that you claim to be the same method that science uses amount to this "logical" progression:1) Things exist
2) They look designed
3) Evolution postulates soley natural causes
4) From these evidences we can conclude that there is a designerThat is sooooo far from the scientific method it is laughable. That things "look" designed is NOT evidence, at best it is an observation - albeit a rather vague, subjective observation.Your whole argument is based on the idea that both evolution and your design conclusions use the same method, namely indirect evidence. However, your concept of indirect evidence is seriously flawed. To say that anything "looks designed" is not evidence, indirect or otherwise. I don't think you understand the significance of indirect evidence and how science using indirect evidence is different than what you are inferring.If I said "the moon looks like it is made of Swiss cheese" is that evidence that the moon is indeed made of Swiss cheese? Based on your responses to Mod, I would guess your response is that the moon being made from Swiss cheese has no basis in reality so it would not be evidence. But the whole point of evidence is to determine if our observations do have a basis in reality, so this line of reasoning is 'begging the question.'We have two statements that are equivalent in their observational power:1) living organisms look like they are designed
2) the moon looks like it is made of Swiss cheeseWhat we want to do is determine if either or both of those statements have a basis in reality. How do we do that using indirect evidence?I also need to point out that evidence needs to be taken in the context of answering a research question. Observations are fine, but without the context of a hypothesis they are just observations, not evidence. If this needs more clarification from me, I will expand on this idea some more.So, our research hypothesis would be
H₁: The moon is made of Swiss cheeseand our null hypothesis would be:
H₀: The moon is not made of Swiss cheeseWe could measure the wavelengths of light that are reflected from a piece of Swiss cheese and see if the same wavelengths are being reflected from the moon. These measurements are based on what we know about reflected and absorbed light.We could calculate the mass of the moon if it was made of cheese and determine if it would be massive enough to remain in a stable shape and orbit. These calculations are based on what we know about gravity and massive objects.We could use the information we have about how Swiss cheese is made and determine if there is a possible mechanism for producing Swiss cheese in the volume needed to make up the moon and to put that mass of cheese into orbit around the earth. If we can determine a mechanism by which this could occur, it would lend support to the observation.No mechanism by which it could occur and failure of the other tests to support the observation would lead us to the conclusion that we fail to reject the null hypothesis that "the moon is NOT made of Swiss cheese."Here, I need to point out that failure to reject the null hypothesis is not evidence that the null hypothesis is true. If we then hypothesized that the moon was made of rock and we found evidence that supported that hypothesis so that we could say "the moon is made of rock" we could then, in fact say that the moon is NOT made of cheese, since the two premises would be mutually exclusive. But failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the null hypothesis true.Now its your turn...H₁: Living organisms are designed
H₀: Living organism are not designedWhat tests do you propose that would yield evidence that would support your hypothesis?People have been asking you for evidence over and over on this thread, and it appears to me you don't really understand what they are asking for since you think you have presented the evidence. But in fact, you have only presented1) your subjective observations
2) your logic for asking the research question and
3) your conclusion of the matter.You have missed the evidence part. It should go between 2) and 3)Now you know what is being asked of you. Let's see the evidence.HBD

In addition to what Genomicus said, when a research hypothesis is proposed the burden of proof is to support the hypothesis, not to prove the null hypothesis. So it is like this:H₁: The bacterial flagella is an irreducibly complex system
H₀: The bacterial flagella is NOT an irreducibly complex systemThe burden is on demonstrating that the system IS irreducibly complex not that it evolved in any particular way. All one has to do is propose a plausible way which the flagella could have evolved in a step-wise manner and the research hypothesis is not supported, or you cannot reject the null hypothesis.If the research hypothesis was that the bacterial flagella evolved in this particular way, then the burden would be on the researchers to support that hypothesis and show that it DID evolve in that way. However, the null hypothesis in this case would not be "irreducible complexity," but would be "did NOT evolve in this specific way."Design hypotheses need to be supported on their own weight. It is not that it can't be proven that this evolved in any specific way, therefore design. It doesn't work that way.HBD

The evidence you are referring to here is found in the primary literature. It is usually available if you know where to look. The problem is it is written for people who are familiar with the particular discipline being discussed, not written for laypersons.When we try to discuss the actual evidence you complain about a "snow job." This stuff is not simple. I have tried to have a discussion about how generic processes work but you are not interested. You expect the details of very complicated processes to be simple. It takes years of study to have a good grip on these concepts. I am 2/3 of the way through my Master's program and I don't consider myself to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But basically my full time job is studying these concepts (genetics, plant/pathogen interations, fungal biology to be specific), it's not just a hobby. I say that just to point out that there is ALOT to learn and it is not easy.If you are looking for more technical descriptions of fossil evidence for example, start searching on Google Scholar instead of regular google.You could also try less disdain for those who are trying to explain very difficult concepts to you. I personally try hard to explain things in a way I think you would understand. I don't intentionally try to "snow job" - that is just an insult you like to throw around so you don't have to consider my arguments.Most of your argument against evolution is just incredulity - it doesn't add up to you so it must be false, which is fine. But others, including myself, have examined the evidence extensively and it makes sense to us. And since it makes sense and all seems to add up, I accept evolution as the best explanation of how life on earth has diversified.HBD

We have no direct evidence that DNA forms a helical structure, or that the sun is made up of hydrogen gas, or that the temperature on the surface of Venus is 460 deg C, or for most cellular processes, or that I have a heart beating in my chest (all the evidence that there is a heart in my chest is indirect since no one has ever cut my chest open looked inside to actually see my heart), or... need I go on? Why does no one rant against those facts as nonscientific?Treating indirect evidence as inferior or suspect is BS. It's how evidence addresses the issue that is important. The best evidence comes from a test of a specific hypothesis regardless if it is direct or indirect. I don't know what "welter" means, just jargon designed to confuse us non English majors. Well I didn't claim evidence, I said "argument." My experience is that you don't really want to consider the evidence - it is too readily dismissed Haven't argued from authoriry, have i? How does that make my arguments irrelevant? What does it matter what others here would accect? What a strange dismissal.HBD

The conclusion of evolution is that organisms change over time due to natural selection acting on random mutations and that these changes lead to the divergence in species that we have on earth today. A conclusion that there are ONLY natural causes is not the conclusion that science itself reaches and it is certainly not MY conclusion. Which is exactly the goal of scientific endeavors... to test what is going on. However, you have yet to reveal any of these so called tests that lead to your conclusions. You have mentioned a couple observations, but no tests or results that support the conclusions about those observations. The observation is not the test or the evidence of itself. I have no idea what this means...When you get sick, like when you get a cold, do you look for supernatural causes? Or do you except the germ theory of disease? When you get the stomach flu, do you think it is a demon inflicting sickness on you? Or do you think maybe you ate some bad fish? I expect that you recognize the germ theory of disease as a valid explanation of the natural causes behind disease. Is this the same thing as "Soley Natural Causes?"Accepting the germ theory of disease is not the same as accepting "Soley Natural Causes" just as accepting evolution is not accepting "Soley Natural Causes."HBD

Don't you see the contradiction here? Evolution also has mountains of evidence shared by thousands of researchers who are qualified to assess the evidence and there is no doubt that it is coherent, objective and consilient (meaning multiple lines of evidence converge to the same result). To you it is just people making up stories, and we have the popular media to blame for some of that. Many popular stories about evolution and the history of the earth are highly dramatized and are designed to capture the imagination of the reader. But that is not the stuff of the scientific literature. The stuff you're reading is devoid of the experiments, the data and the details that researchers used to reach their conclusions. You are getting the layman's version. I see what you are objecting to, but disagree with your assessment of the nature of evidence. In the past you have called this "historic evidence" or something like that, and that is actually a better description of what you object to than indirect evidence. As I have said a couple of times in this thread, the strength of evidence relies on the question that it is intended to answer. Indirect evidence is powerful when the test is designed to answer the question properly.I would suggest that geology and paleontology are not as hypothesis driven as some of the what you call "hard sciences" and perhaps this is what you are talking about. Geology and paleontology are mostly descriptive sciences where the data they generate is descriptive of physical phenomenon. Of course, both disciplines do use hypothesis based testing, it is just not as prevalent as in other disciplines. I think this may be the differences you are talking about. This is not true. It is not demanded of creationists to produce direct evidence. Any evidence would be good. "It looks designed" is NOT evidence, it is a subjective observation. I would leave out the idea of a "very simple physical fact" as that is hardly the case. Also, no conclusion is inevitable in science. What I mean is, someone could come along tomorrow and show that our whole understanding of the double helix is wrong. Data always needs to be interpreted and there is often differences in opinion as to how to interpret a given data set even in the "hard sciences." In addition, I don't think you realize the arguing that goes on behind the scenes about these inevitable conclusions. Sometimes it take years or decades to hash it out and for scientists to come to a consensus. Figuring out how a new piece of evidence fits into the whole puzzle can be difficult. I don't want to "smack you down." I want to discuss the science of creationism or the lack thereof. I see the whole creation science movement as deceptive and completely devoid of substance. I actually believed their nonsense for a while, but as I investigated the facts, I realized I had been lied to. Anyone who wants to be a creationist and believe the earth is 6,000 years old that's fine - no problem with me. But claiming it's science... well it's not. And I am discussing that issue here.HBD

What is it precisely that puts creationists, in particular, in such a unique position to recognize this "fact?" The only thing I can think of is their "literal" reading of Genesis 1 - 2. Not exactly scientific criteria...HBD

Any idea why so many silly ideas from such an obvious and clear truth that is outlined so thoroughly in Genesis 1 & 2?HBD

I think a major sticking point in this whole discussion is what constitutes evidence. Rather than me telling you what I think qualifies as evidence, I would rather you and Dawn describe what you think the criteria is for evidence.It seems that you accept some types of indirect evidence but not others; what would be the objective criteria to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable types of indirect evidence?I also think that since this is a discussion about "the science in creationism," we should define what separates scientific evidence from non-scientific evidence. In the broadest sense, evidence can be defined as "anything presented in support of an assertion." But does that mean any opinion, experience, assertion or logical argument can be considered to be scientific evidence?For example, I do believe in the power of prayer and I would cite my person experiences as evidence that prayer does work. However, I do not consider my personal experiences to be scientific evidence. Do you agree or disagree and why? and what is it about personal experiences and such, that would make them scientific or nonscientific?This should provide a framework for some discussion on what suitable evidence is.HBD

According to Kent Hovind his positions were 100% Biblical! and there was some of the most ridiculous claims ever coming from that Biblical creationist. What about Morris, Safarti, Comfort and Cameron... all devout, 100% Biblical creationists. Who are the new Biblical creationists who have done such a outstanding job of representing the science in Genesis? Ken Ham?HBD

Do you have links to the published papers where their methods and results are described in detail?HBD

I am curious as to what you consider to be evidence. It seems that the nature of evidence is a major sticking point in this discussion with both sides clamoring on about "show me the evidence", "we have presented the evidence" but neither side accepting the others evidence. I would like to hear from you and Faith as to what you consider to be evidence. See Message 415 for a more detailed post about what I am asking for.HBD