A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

The ID espoused by the author of "IDthink" and that espoused by the denizens of "ARN" are quite at odds with one another. The 'fellows' and administrators of ARN, and its subsidiary CRSC, are quite obviously young (and a few old) earth creationists that are actively deceiving the public with their scientific sounding rhetoric.Since creationists often declare that disagreements between evolutionists is indicative of some major problem with the theory, I submit that because IDthink and ARN espouse quite different versions of 'ID' that, therefore, ID is in crisis as a weak hypothesis and is not scientific. Indeed, the host of IDthink in fact claims that, at best, only a "suspicion" of ID is warranted. One has to wonder then why he goes to such lengths to prop this notion up...As for the notion of no 'junk' DNA, this is 'technically' correct - just like creationists are 'technically' correct when they say that the appendix has a function. It is the correlaries drawn form these technically correct claims that cause the problems. Creationists say that because the appendix does something, it cannot be vestigial.Creationists also claim that because 'junk' DNA does something, it cannot be 'junk.'
It has long been known that most DNA has some function. It now appears that large amounts of that function in non-coding DNA is primarily in maintaining the structure of the chromosomes. As such, large scale changes within this DNA has no known impact on the function of the organism. Even in intronic (non-coding) DNA, relativeley larege scale insertions and deletion events have no consequence. (see, for example, http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignment1.htm).So, while 'junk' DNA may serve a (many?) function(s), it is also fairly clear that it has no (known) impact on phenotype.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
Anyway, for me, you'll never be able to prove there is no ID, as it is something I already know. Just like you can't tell me 1 + 1 doesn't = 2.

---

You display an attitude that is all too common in creationist circles. There is nothing to convince you that you are in error. How could you be? You KNOW you are correct.

​

So whay are you participating on a discussion board, if you already KNOW that 'ID' is true?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]schraf:
I will repeat:We will be able to make predictions about future genetic movements with ID as a guide?Please provide some examples of these predictions.John Paul:
I gave you a link. Do I have to read it to you?Using ID to Understand the Living World[/QUOTE]That is a poor link. I saw this whole farce when he posted it at ARN about 2 years ago. The funny thing is, the article he claims to have found only due to applying his 'teleological perspective' actually shows up in about any possible combination of search words regarding proofreading in Medline (which he used). Since he thought about this while writing an essay on translational proofreading, it stands to reason that he actually had prior knowledge of the article he claims not to have known about. Don't believe me? Try it yourself.Of course, lets just say that he really did not know about that article. Let's just say that he thought about the issue and then did a lit. search and found what he was looking for (which he did). The whole thrust of that article is that the concept of ID can guide research, not that ID is a scientifically valid premise.
But says the author:"Of course, someone could argue that these researchers did not need ID. But that response would miss the point. "Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...To find stuff that had already been 'discovered'...And this is uspposed to impress sceptics as to the usefullness of ID? Doing lit reviews? Whihc are done anyway when beginning an experiment?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
/B]

---

I visited Wofram's website. He seems very much a mathematician/physicist. I tend to be sceptical of any biological claims made by such individuals.
As you say, the Forbe's article seems a bit silly - more like the gushings of a school girl going to see the Beetles in Shea Stadium than a story by a 'professional.'
I would like to point out - 'cellular automata' has nothing to do with cells in the biological sense, in case anyone didn't see that...
Of course, of interest was this (from the article):"He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you understand it, it's actually very simple."Doesn't all that ID-frindly to me...Also of note - the author of the article seems to focus on evolution (or at least Darwin and Gould, and at least in the last page and a half...). Shouldn't be a surprise considering the conservative nature of the magazine.

​

[This message has been edited by SLP, 01-02-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by SLP, 01-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
As for the notion of no 'junk' DNA, this is 'technically' correct - just like creationists are 'technically' correct when they say that the appendix has a function. It is the correlaries drawn form these technically correct claims that cause the problems. Creationists say that because the appendix does something, it cannot be vestigial.

​

John Paul:
The problem with calling something 'vestigial' is that you have to know (and show) what the original function was. Good luck.

---

Let's try an experiment. There are three extrinsic muscles attached to the base of the pinnae. These are called the auricularis muscles. They are skeletal (i.e. voluntary). Can you voluntarily contract yours? Some people can. Usually, folks can only contract their posterior auricularis, which causes the pinna to retract slightly. Most folks cannot even do that. Of course, not all voluntary muscles are stricly voluntary - many are co-opted by the CNS when reflex activity is involved.
Anyway, the same set of muscles can be found attached to the pinnae in nearly all mammals that I know of. Dogs, cats, bats, cows, etc. - all can voluntarily move their ears in a much larger range of motion that even the ear-wiggliest person can. In addition, their auricularis muscles reflexively change the orientation, and to an extent, the shape of the pinnae to assist with 'echo location'. We cannot do this. We have to turn our heads.
The existence of the auricularis muscles in humans is good evidence of vestigiality. I once had an anti-Darwinist present 'evidence' that the auricularis muscles were not vestigial. He produced a clinical report of a young man that was born with his posterior auricularis muscles attached to his pinnae well at the base, and this was thought to be responsible for the poor kid's ears sticking out like airplane wings. The anti-Darwinist concluded that, therefore, the posterior auricularis muscles have a definite function - preventing the ears from sticking out in a cosmetic nightmare fashion - and so cannot be vestigial.
Also, George Howe, co-author of the creationist book "Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional" wrote on the CARM evolution discussion board that because he can wiggle his ears such that when he is wearing glasses, he can focus a bit better, that there was evidence of function and therefore, no vestigiality. He wrote so only half-jokingly, but before he had 'admitted' this, several creationists had agreed with him.So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist. Are such demands encumbent upon those espousing ID or some other version of creationism? Let's see....

quote:

---

More on 'junk' DNA

​

Much DNA just "junk" -- or is it?

​

ID Freindly Evolution

---

I am at a loss as to explain why you chose those links. Did you even bother to read them? They contradict each other on many points. From:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/junkdna031901.htmThe junk comes in several varieties, the most common of which are repetitive segments. There are short repetitive segments, such as the pieces that Schmid studies, consisting of 272 base pairs; and there are long repetitive segments of 6,000 base pairs. Both segments pop up repeatedly in human DNA, collectively accounting for 20 percent of the entire genome, Schmid said.Yet from http://www.idthink.net/arn/shap/index.htm:And what plays the crucial role in this organization is the repetitive DNA (commonly called "junk DNA").So, is junk DNA just repetitive segments, as Mike Gene clearly indicates, or are repetitive segments just one type of ‘junk’? The distinction is important.Gene also condescendingly writes:In the future, the non-teleological revisionism will try to make it seem as if non-teleologists have always known "junk DNA" wasn't junk. Every time you see a non-teleologist using junk DNA in this way, copy and save it, for history's sake.And yet what do we see in the ARN article?The idea that the junk may not be junky hearkens back to the early days of molecular biology. The prevailing view once was that all DNA was useful to the body. Then, two different teams of scientists published commentaries in the journal Nature in 1980 suggesting that some DNA is "selfish" -- that it exists simply for the sake of existing.It seems that for at least 21 years, real scientists have suspected — even ‘known’ — junk DNA wasn’t simply ‘junk’.
Instead of saving such claims for ‘history’s sake’, I suggest keeping the self-serving rantings of ‘teleologists’ for history’s sake.The following appears in the ARN article:The men who popularized the notion of junk DNA believe in it yet. "There are people who still believe that most of the DNA is useful," Orgel said. "I say, 'Fine, go find what it does, and we'll call it something else, but I think you're wasting your time.' "I include this because, as anyone that has lurked or participated at ARN should know, many anti-Darwinists like to quote Orgel, especially when it comes to his work on abiogenesis. I wonder — will they hoist him upon a pedestal for his claims about junk DNA as well?

quote:

---

SLP:
So, while 'junk' DNA may serve a (many?) function(s), it is also fairly clear that it has no (known) impact on phenotype.

​

John Paul:
It is not that clear at all.

---

Great. Then it should be no problem for you to show us evidence that junk DNA does in fact impact phenotype. Perhaps I should rephrase — it is clear that it has not been established that junk DNA has an impact on phenotype.

quote:

---

SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...

​

John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.

---

He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication. You should mean he was going to write a paper on it. Mike Gene does not do research, certainly nothing pertinent to the issues at hand (he is supposedly some sort of technician). But your take on his essay shows me that you didn’t read it very closely.
Of course, if he really was going to do the research, could you show me where in your link he outlines his experimental design — premised on ID, of course? I mean, if one is going to do laboratory research, one typically has some preliminary work already done and has outlined an experiment to do prior to doing a literature search. At least that is the way I did real research. You build on what has already been done — so what had been done using his teleolgical framework? What research has been done using this framework? His ‘prediction’ was made about 2 years ago — surely, he must have something concrete to show in all that time
Does HE 'know' that transcriptional proofreading is the product of Intelligent intervention? Does he show it?

quote:

---

ID fits the evidence much better than materialistic naturalism does. So why does it bother you so much?

---

Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer. Doesn’t make sense? Well, who are we to know the mind of the Designer (thank you Billy Dembski).When that sort of explanation is given, of course it explains everything better.Why does it ‘bother me’? It doesn’t. Things that do not exist do not bother me at all. What bothers me — if that is the right phrase — is that so many people proselytize this sort of non-explanation as THE explanation and call it scientific.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
RetroCrono:
I'm still not exactly clear as to why junk DNA proves or dissaproves an ID.

​

John Paul:
It doesn't 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. Science isn't about 'proof'. It can, however, be used as evidence for ID and against common descent as depicted by the current ToE.

---

Please expand on this. How, exactly, is junk DNA evidence for ID and against evolution? If you KNOW this, please SHOW this...

quote:

---

RetroCrono:
Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.

​

John Paul:
It is from the specified complexity of DNA, RNA and the living cell that we infer ID. It is the details (read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box') that allows us to see the huge obstacles that face Darwinian step-by-step processes. It is at the molecular level where ID is most apparent.

---

'Apparent', apparently, is in the eye of the beholder. How is specified complexity determined?After the fact. Taking an extant gene/protein/mechanism/cascade and declaring it to be specified complexity is an illusion. In order for extant gene/protein/etc. to be declare dot have been introduced as-is, we must KNOW this and be able to SHOW this.1. How -exactly - is it KNOWN that genes, etc. are examples of specified complexity?
How is it KNOWN that these genes, etc. were 'desinged' as-is - that they were always as they are?2. And how are the answers to #1 SHOWN?

As an aside, I would be a bit cautious in referring to the 'work' on the godandscience.org site.Much to my astonishment, the author - lab tech Richard Deem - STILL has an extremely deceptive bit on his website, despite the fact that I pointed it out to him nearly 3 years ago!On his page:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/news.html#07
on the very bottom thetre is a blurb entitled "Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm Darwinism."In this blurb, he refers to this articleSharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112.Deem quotes Sharp "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."Deem, however, leaves out several key points.Here is a post that I made at the BOTCW board about a year ago, after again seeing Deem's site:*************************Richard Deem, Apologist, at http://www.jps.net/bygrace/evolution/news.html#07 writes:Molecular Biology Fails to Confirm DarwinismAlthough molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt[sic] to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success."
7.Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112.The page this appears on is dated March 29, 2000. This is especially interesting to me because more than a year ago, I contacted Deem, for the second time, to inform him how deceptive and dishonest his characterization was (is).You see, as I write this, I am looking at two things — the same 2 things I was looking at when I challenged Christian Apologist and lab tech Deem more than a year ago —
A photocopy of the Sharp article and a reprint of the research article that Sharp referred to from the same issue of Nature. Yes, Sharp did write: "Attempts to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." But he also wrote, and Christian Apologist Deem fails to mention, this: One apparent success concerns the enzyme lysozyme in Primates., referring to a paper in that very journal. More importantly, Deem deceives by omission — as I mentioned, the Sharp article is from the news section of Nature, it was not a research report itself. It provided, as these essays usually do, a bit of background for an actual research report in the journal. And that is the other thing I am looking at — the actual paper titled Episodic adaptive evolution of primate lysozymes, Messier and Stewart. 385:151-154, 1997. This Deem fails to mention at all. Nor does Deem anywhere mention the other bits of molecular evidence for selection.I first broached this topic when Deem appeared on the old Internet Infidels Evolution Discussion board some 2 years ago. He provided links to his site, boasting about how well documented his ‘essays’ disproving ‘Darwinism’ were. I pointed out the Sharp deception at the time — he ignored it. The subject came up again some time later, when another discussion board poster referred to Deem’s site. I visited, only to see the same disinformation being presented. I wrote about it on a discussion board, and Deem made a brief appearance, claiming to have ‘corrected’ his error, but still insisting that he was right. Visiting his site, I saw a half-baked attempt to cover his tracks. A quickly written, typo-riddled addendum claiming that there was an article in the journal, but that it still didn’t ‘prove’ Darwinism.I gave up, and had completely forgotten about it until I read creationist-engineer Fred Williams refer to one of Deem’s ‘well referenced’ articles in an email/online debate at his propaganda web site ( http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/bdka_mypost2.htm : Here's a well referenced online article refuting junk DNA.).I went to the link, and checked out Deem’s (very impressive) site. And to my surprise, the ORIGINAL bit of disinformation was again present!How can one characterize this other than as a bit of propagandistic nonsense? Of disinformation? Of LYING for Christ? He KNOWS that the wording of that asinine little blurb is misleading — indeed, if he did not, he would not have changed it once.It is extremely informative that this self-described Apologist feels the need to lie and mislead to sway the flock.
***************************Reading the site today, I see that Deem has actually removed his addendum, leaving the original misrepresentation intact. This is not an isolated event: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gencode.htmfrom the introduction:(Note from the owner of this site: When this page was initially placed on the internet, Richard Deems removed from his internet pages, the paper which the below criticized. Now it has come to my attention that Deems has placed the old, flawed and uncorrected paper back on the internet. I have changed the link below to make sure that the reader can see the original document. It is sad that Deems does not seem open to change.--GRM)Seems Deem is more interested in the ends than the means...The Evolution Fairytale [/URL] - Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist.

​

John Paul:
Not at all. If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.

---

Interesting... I shall make good use of this.

quote:

---

I have no problem with alleged vestigials. Why? Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds.

---

And the dodge goes full-circle. 'Original function' is just another layer of criteria lobbed on by the goal-post shifting creationists.
From the Harcourt online scientific dictionary:vestigial [ve stijl] Biology. 1. remaining as a vestige 2. small and imperfectly developed.I think my example clearly falls under category 2.Of course, as for the created kinds bit:If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.So please substantiate the reference to 'created kinds' with verifiable documentation.

quote:

---

SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...

​

John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication.

​

John Paul:
from Using ID to Infer Molecular Biology:
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."

​

That does it for me.

---

"What if I did this? "
That does it for me.Your quote above does not in any way, shape or form support your claim above:"He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position."Please try again.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

ID fits the evidence much better than materialistic naturalism does. So why does it bother you so much?

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer.

​

John Paul:
Tell you what- until a purely 'naturalistic' answer comes along, it is safe to infer ID.

---

Not in science. In science, one infers what there is good evidence for. What you are doing is taking the ignorant man's out - it is a logical fallacy and a poor way of doing science. "Until you prove blue fairies push the sun around the cosmos, I will infer that it is red fairies."

quote:

---

Materialistic naturalism has been weighed, measured and found wanting.

---

Well, I guess that ends that.Now, since you are so familiar with the workings of ID, creation, and science, please outline the criteria for positing Intelligent Intervention in biological research.That is, at what point during research should the conclusion of ID be warranted? And what if, in the future, a naturalistic explanation is discovered for what had previously been relegated to the Designer?
Would that effectively be a falsification of ID? if not, why not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
Please expand on this. How, exactly, is junk DNA evidence for ID and against evolution? If you KNOW this, please SHOW this...

​

John Paul:
from Pseudogenes, are they non-functional?

​

"The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself additional evidence for their activity. This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations. Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."

---

I guess this means that YOU cannot explain your own 'beliefs.'
It would appear that the author of that 'trueorigin'[sic] article has, as is often the case, foisted additional abilities upon evolution, then claimed that they have not been utilized (removing pseudogenes). How would one look for an 'old' pseudogene that has been "scrambled beyond recognition"? If it was "scrambled beyond recognition" would it not be IMPOSSIBLE to identify? Pierre's essay is really just a synopsis of creationist "John Woodmorappe's" article linked in the essay. Woody first defines pseudogenes so as to include things like ALU sequences and all transposable elements, then, explaining that some of these elements have been discovered to perform functions, declare all pseudogenes (possibly) functional.All athletes are professional basketball players.
Professional basketball players make millions of dollars.
There is a professional soccer league in this country.
Therefore, the professional soccer players make millions of dollars.The naivete of Pierre's (and Woody's) conclusions are staggering. Strawman wrapped in a logical fallacy stuffed into an erroneous defintion.Perhaps you can simply explain your position, and perhaps support it with a link, rather than simply posting links left and right.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RetroCrono:
Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.

​

John Paul:
It is from the specified complexity of DNA, RNA and the living cell that we infer ID. It is the details (read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box') that allows us to see the huge obstacles that face Darwinian step-by-step processes. It is at the molecular level where ID is most apparent.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
'Apparent', apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.

​

John Paul:
I guess that is why guys like Dawkins states "The apparent design is illusory." It is even apparent to an devote atheist. All he can do is say it's 'illusory' as if he knows what he is talking about. Of course he says that because of philosophical differences. Apparently you seldom (if ever) work on designing complex systems. If you had you would see exactly what Behe is talking about in Darwin's Black Box.

---

And apparently you seldom (if ever) perform any research in the field of biology, especially as it pertains to genetics/systematics. And of course you claim that there is Design due to your philosophical underpinnings. I guess that means that you and Dawkins are tied, zero zero.
Does Behe work on designing complex systems? If not, how was it that he concluded design? Of course, you engineering types won't like what Wolfram has to say about such things...

quote:

---

SLP:
How is specified complexity determined?

​

John Paul:
If something is complex, is specified and has a small probability of occurring by chance, then it exhibits specified complexity. DNA & RNA fit that bill. So doesn't life in general.

---

Yes - after the fact. Please explain how DNA is:complex
specified
AND
has a small probability of occurring by chance (how does an organic molecule 'occur'?)I think you are confusing "DNA" with the sequence of DNA in a genome.If so, then your argument is indeed post hoc. If not, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Tell you what- show that DNA can originate naturally and you will have shown there is no need to infer ID. Do the same with RNA and life and you will have shot down ID.

---

Why should I have to 'prove' anything to you? You are the one claiming that DNA/RNA are coomplex and specified and so must have arisen by Design.According to YOU:If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.I have made no claims regarding the origin of DNA/RNA or anything else.You have.Now please substantiate it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist.
John Paul:
Not at all. If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Interesting... I shall make good use of this.

​

John Paul:
Most likely not to support your claims.

---

I see that you have reverted almost immediately to your usual tone. Sad.
Anyway, it should have been fairly obvious. I shall make good use of your statement "If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it". As such, you clearly have done nothing of the sort in any of the topics raised in this thread. From the Merriam-Websters online dictionary:Main Entry: substantiate
1 : to give substance or form to : EMBODY
2 : to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFYKeep these definitions in mind...

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with alleged vestigials. Why? Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
And the dodge goes full-circle. 'Original function' is just another layer of criteria lobbed on by the goal-post shifting creationists.
From the Harcourt online scientific dictionary:

​

vestigial [ve stijl] Biology. 1. remaining as a vestige 2. small and imperfectly developed.

​

I think my example clearly falls under category 2.

​

John Paul:
Gee whiz huxter, I never see you bring that up when Pat posts that vestigial means it no longer has its original function. But either way you still have to show that the original humans had that 'small & imperfectly developed' whatever. Ya see a human evolving into a human is not beyond the scope of the Creationists' PoV.

---

That falls under definition 1. As you can plainly see, there is an additional definition. But why would the 'original human' have to have had an already vestigial structure? It seems as though you are using one-dimensional thinking. There is no provision that I am aware of in evolution that states that some 'original' type organism must have existed in an 'as-is' form. Perhaps you can SUBSTANTIATE this?
Of course, it appears that within the creationist's PoV, the evolution of some as yet unknown original 'ape kind' both chimpanzees and bonobos is not only plausible, but necessary.

quote:

---

SLP:
Of course, as for the created kinds bit:

​

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.

​

So please substantiate the reference to 'created kinds' with verifiable documentation.

​

John Paul:
Again? How many times to you have to be linked to something?

​

Baraminology

​

Ligers & Wholphins- what's next?

---

A couple of things.1. The links have absolutely nothing to do with SUBSTANTIATING the concept of the created kind. That is, your links are basically red herrings. Recall please that you had written:
"Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds."
The concept of the created kind has not been substantiated by any means. Your links show this, in fact.
2. The author of the second link essentially admits that one of the key criterion in identifying baramina is a sham - hybridization."If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind...
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."This means that 'baraminology' is unfalsifiable. ReMine's joy is not science.
3. The first link is funny for several reasons. Among them is the fact that these baraminologists have basically taken evolutionary systematics terminology and replaced it with biblically derived names (holobaramin in place of clade, for instance). They have also co-opted the methodology and even the computer programs utilized in evolutionary systematics. The primary difference between the two is that the baraminologists have set totally arbitrary criteria as to what delineates baramina (with the exception of hybridization). I can gleefully expand on thsi if you wouold like, complete with citations and quotes form the creationists themselves.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication.

​

John Paul:
from Using ID to Infer Molecular Biology:
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."

​

That does it for me.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

SLP:
"What if I did this? "
That does it for me.
Your quote above does not in any way, shape or form support your claim above:

​

"He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position."

​

John Paul:
Sure it does. I can't help it if you have a reading comprehension problem. What do you think this means?
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out."

---

Do you know what the word "could" means?
I submit that it is not my reading comprehension skills that are in doubt.

quote:

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer.

​

John Paul:
Tell you what- until a purely 'naturalistic' answer comes along, it is safe to infer ID.

​

----------------------------------------------------------------------SLP:
Not in science. In science, one infers what there is good evidence for.

​

John Paul:
Well then, that settles that. There is NO evidence, good or otherwise, that DNA, RNA or life could originate naturally. So by your logic we are right to infer ID. Thanks.

---

Are you talking about evolution or the origin of life? You seem to frequently conflate the two and slip back and forth between topics.

quote:

---

SLP:
What you are doing is taking the ignorant man's out - it is a logical fallacy and a poor way of doing science. "Until you prove blue fairies push the sun around the cosmos, I will infer that it is red fairies."

​

John Paul:
What you are doing is proving just how a small mind works. Thanks again.

​

------------------
John Paul

---

Yes - by getting you to write more and more, this is demonstrated time and again.You have thus far failed to SUBSTANTIATE any of your claims in this thread. You are a real boon to your cause.Shall I assume that you abandoned all of the other topics that have been mentioned?

​

[This message has been edited by SLP, 01-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
They don't exclude it{genetic information}. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.

---

Yes, it is. Indeed, the baraminologists have co-opted the methods of molecular phylogenetics for their cause. Molecualr data, of course, is objective, and so analyses of it can provide objective results. Objective results are what is strived for in science. The creationists, on the other hand, discard the objectivity of molecular analyses when it goes against their preconceived beliefs.
Furthermore, they often try to 'rig' analyses to produce their desired outcomes.Not a very satisfactory way to win over the sceptics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
They don't exclude it{genetic information}. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, it is.

​

John Paul:
No it isn't.

---

So now you are saying that genetics is not part of the baraminology equation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
Shall I assume that you abandoned all of the other topics that have been mentioned?

​

John Paul:
Assume whatever you want. All you do is twist and misrepresent whatever any IDer and/ or Creationist posts anyway so what is the difference if you want to assume something your little mind conjured up?

​

I would like to have an intelligent debate but with you that is impossible.

​

(for those of that don't know this, SLP, aka huxter, once wanted to have sex with my dead mother. He is a sick puppy in need of treatment.)

​

---

Speaking of twisting things...1. You are unable to have an intelligent discussion with anyone on any topic on any board, as has been made clear by your banning on the OCW and multiple bannings on the No Answers in Genesis Board.2. I tried to have one here, but you simply dove back into your old ways. Shame.3. It is true that you replied to fewer and fewer issues with each response. Do you deny it?4. I could not possibly have known that your mother was dead.
Of course, you always leave out the fact that I was responding to an over-the-top insult of me that you had posted. Remember? "You are what you eat" was the post topic, and the subject? "Then you must be a big d***"? Remember that?5. And at least I have the common decency not to look up and post the addresses of people that I don't like on the internet in a thinly veiled and laughable attempt at imntimidation (whihc got your thread removed on at least 2 boards that I know of).So, how about trying again?First, tell me EXACTLY where I twisted or misrepresented anything you have written in this thread.If you cannot, then I suggest you retract that accusation.I cannot help it that you get steamed when your errors are pointed out and your limitations met.I can, of course, support any of the claims I have made.Can you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Fair enough. They are going to have to be very, very careful on what methods they use to classify, or they are just going to be accused of bias, or worse, fitting the classification to the bible.

​

This is not an attack on your position, just an observation.

​

Regardless of what method(s) they use, they are still going to have to explain why genetic/protein information can be indicative of common descent, & then why it isn't indicative at genus level & above.

​

Mark

---

I have in my possession several of the seminal 'baraminology' papers as published in CRSQ. As I mention elsewhere, 'their' methods are the same as the methods employed by evolutionary systematists. The difference is that they place arbitrary lines of demarcation between 'baramina'.They use genetic data when the results conform to or can be accommodated by their over-riding Scriptural considerations (there is actually a section in the papers called "Scriptural considerations", in which they justify their actions via the uber-authority of the bible). When the results conflict with it, they discard the results in favor of results that they can use.
One example of this is in a paper on the baraminology of Primates. Genetic analyses supported a grouping of humans with the other apes - a bible no-no.A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. D.A. Robinson and D.P. Cavanaugh. CRSQ 34:4, pp.196-208From the introduction:valid baraminic methodology must be capable of distinguishing between biologically similar yet phylogenetically distinct species such as humans and nonhuman primates.So, from the beginning it is presumed that humans and nonhuman primates are not phylogenetically related (see below). Yet, from the abstract of the same paper, we see:We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.Most interesting in this paper is that humans are actually used as the outgroup in one of their analyses and they STILL grouped with chimps. This, of course, was discarded....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

John Paul:
Oh, like the way evolutionists ignore irreducible complexity & minimal functionality?

---

Nobody is ignoring it. It is just that others see such 'arguments' for what they really are - post hoc gibberish.