Chat with Aron Ra

[rationalist]

You are still misrepresenting evolution, evolution has absolutely nothing to do where life came from. Evolution is biodiversity of the planet. Life started somewhere and somehow and evolution was the means to get where are we now, different species evolved from one point.

Now it comes to this is your God smart enough to seed (to start from one point) this world and knew what would happen when he seeded this world or is evolution an arbitrary mechanism just as we explained?

Nowhere did I conflate the origin of life, with evolution. The origin of life is not possible by natural means.

The physical world, from micro to macro, depends on Information

There does exist a world (of universals or the form of the Good, which you can identify with God), which transcends the physical empirical world, and this world of intelligible forms is responsible for the “enforcement” of mathematical order in the physical world. Thus, intelligibility is responsible for the physical world. The universe is about information and information processing, and it's matter that emerges as a secondary concept. Simple rules generate what we see in nature. Information is a far more fundamental quantity in the Universe than matter or energy. The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts. The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas that can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language. Physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. This is also known as "the Vacuum" or "The Zero-Point Field." Matter as described by the Standard Model of Physics as a kind of epiphenomenon arising out of an informational substrate. I call this theory “informationism” to distinguish it from materialism. What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass-energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions? Mathematics is a product of our minds, in exactly the same way that chess, fictional stories, myths, musical compositions, etc, are products of our minds. Thus, upon this conception, the miracle is that the universe happens to conform to our mind generated realities, that the universe is governed, structured, ordered by a mind generated reality. Therefore we can infer the universe is in fact ordered by a like mind upon the basis of the mind-resonating, that is, resonance and conformity to mind-generated realities of mathematics, which the universe possesses.

1. Nature and the universe is mathematical and based on physical laws and rules. Instantiating mathematical laws and rules depends on Information.
2. Proteins are molecular machines that have specific purposes. Their making depends on genetic information.
3. A variety of biological events are performed obeying complex biochemical and biomechanical signals containing instructional information. Those include, for example, cell migration, cell motility, traction force generation, protrusion forces, stress transmission, mechanosensing and mechanotransduction, mechanochemical coupling in biomolecular motors, synthesis, sorting, storage, and transport of biomolecules
4. In living cells, information is encoded through at least 33 genetic, and 43 epigenetic codes and languages.
5. Some convergent informational systems are bat echolocation in bats, oilbirds, and dolphins. That points to a common designer.
6. The Big bang, subatomic particles, the fundamental forces of the universe, the Solar System, the earth, and the moon, in order to permit life, require finely tuned physical parameters, based on information.
7. Setting up life essential error check and repair mechanisms to maintain genetic stability, and minimizing replication, transcription and translation errors, and permit organisms to pass accurately genetic information to their offspring, depends on the error-correcting code, and information to set up the system.
8. Science has unraveled, that cells, strikingly, are cybernetic, ingeniously crafted cities full of factories. Cells contain information, which is stored in genes (books), and libraries (chromosomes). Cells have superb, fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval programs ( gene regulatory networks ) that orchestrate strikingly precise and regulated gene expression. Cells also contain hardware - a masterful information-storage molecule ( DNA ) - and software, more efficient than millions of alternatives ( the genetic code ) - ingenious information encoding, transmission, and decoding machinery ( RNA polymerase, mRNA, the Ribosome ) - and highly robust signaling networks ( hormones and signaling pathways ) - awe-inspiring error check and repair systems of data ( for example mind-boggling Endonuclease III which error checks and repairs DNA through electric scanning ). Information systems, which prescribe, drive, direct, operate, and control interlinked compartmentalized self-replicating cell factory parks that perpetuate and thrive life. In order to be employed at the right place, once synthesized, each protein receives an instructional information tag with an amino acid sequence, and clever molecular taxis ( motor proteins dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles ) load and transport them to the right destination on awe-inspiring molecular highways ( tubulins, actin filaments ).

The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see all the above things. These things are all actions pre-programmed by intelligence in order to be performed autonomously.

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Acts 17:28: For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

 

[AronRa]

Yes, of course. I don't think you will find a creationist who has any problem admitting that.

Answering a closed question can be done with a single word, either yes or no. We don't need 1,375 words all talking about a completely different topic. It doesn't matter what you don't understand about how everything began in the distant past. That's college-level biology for science majors. You're not there yet. But if you stick with me, we'll get there eventually, don't worry. First we need to show how we know that evolution really is happening and that "creation" definitely didn't happen. As Borg already pointed out, we were addressing the Phylogeny Challenge, remember? That's what you agreed to do. So we're going to take one step at a time to find out which of these are biologically related and whether any of these were magically created instead? Remember, if there is any validity to creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw must be found here or it simply can’t be anywhere else. That is the Phylogeny Challenge.

If evolution from common ancestry is NOT true and some flavor of special creation of as-yet unidentified kinds IS true, then there would be some surface levels in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry, and you have already admitted that you do. This is important for a few reasons. First, remember that the issue for Carolus Linnaeus and other pre-Darwinian scientists was the contention that new species could not come about except as an act of special creation by God. But then Linnaeus took a systematic look at all of visible biota together and realized that the Biblical notion of "kinds" clearly doesn't work, not with birds or beasts nor "creeping things", all of which are labels of an extremely lazy system without rules or function and is not practically applicable or consistent at all. For example, why are there different kinds and "sorts" of birds if birds are a "kind" unto themselves? We also know that bats are not birds and whales are not fish, and neither are lobsters. The notion of kinds also didn't work when he saw that there were so many species that are obviously just modified versions of the same thing, yet they cannot interbreed to reproduce fertile or even viable offspring "after their kind". Linnaean taxonomy was already profound evidence of an ancestral phylogeny of a series of daughter sets within multiple ancestral categories, "descent with inherent modification". Thus Linnaeus and others eventually realized that speciation has to be happening, but how could they explain the origin of new species? Darwin answered that by explaining "the origin of species by means of natural selection", and now we know of several other mechanisms too, and we have even observed them at work.

So you too have already abandoned Biblical classifications as inapplicable and you have accepted that even primary speciation definitely happens. Now, how far does that go? Because once creationists realized that speciation had been observed, then they tried to move the goal posts to some higher taxonomic category. But upon inspection, that still doesn't work. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all animal forms (if not the entire eukaryote collective), or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there must be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart—where what we thought was related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. At that point, they would be magically-created separate kinds, and distinctly unique from those listed around it as well as those apparently ancestral to it. Those who promote creationism’s bewildering inanity should be able to show exactly where and why uniquely created kinds could not be grouped together with any parent clades that would otherwise only imply an evolutionary ancestry. Throw away any other argument you might be thinking about; none of them compare to this!



You said that you accept the morphological and genetic evidence that all of these Canids are related, even though the only ones that could be called the same "kind" are a portion of the blue section pertaining to Canus lupus, (wolves and domestic dogs). According to the study this image came from, domestic dogs were bred from Asiatic wolves only about 15,000 years ago. Note that sister genus Cuon (Dhole) and Lycaon (the African painted dog) are no longer genetically compatible with lupus, having diverged from wolves roughly 5 million years ago. Most of the other genera on this chart diverged closer to 10 million years ago, and have grown so far apart since then that they can't interbreed even with their closest kin anymore. Yet even you admit they are obviously all related, and we have the genome to prove it.

You can see and follow the dendrogram of Canidae (below) on my Phylogeny Explorer, a £100,000 project to depict the entire taxonomic tree of life as a single navigable online encyclopedia of biodiversity. It was built by We Are Borg and several other volunteer database engineers, taking information from online libraries of extant organisms like the Interactive Tree of Life and combining that with paleo-sources like Fossilworks, both of which are peer-reviewed. On our website, you can move either way through the tree and also increase the depth to see more of it at once. This is our 4th database so far. We have a 5th one already, which looks and works even better, but that one has millions of taxa to show, and many tweaks required to blend it all. So it will probably take another couple months before it goes live.



As a student of paleontology, let me tell you that in almost every lineage, there are often more ancient groups in the fossil record than we have today. In this case, we have examples like Hesperocyon. At 42 million years old, this is the most primitive-type Canid known. There are also Borophagines, a group of "bone-crushers" dating back to 35 million years ago, and at least as distantly-related to modern dogs [Canini] as are foxes [Vulpini]. They're not included in the genomic study of Canids because they evidently died out at least a couple million years ago, and we don't have their DNA. But since you already admitted that even grey foxes [Urocyon] are biologically related to modern dogs (meaning that they evolved from a common ancestor) then can I assume that you would admit the same about Borophagines and Hesperocyonins? That all of these different genera evolved from a common ancestral "crown" species of canid?

 

[rationalist]

Answering a closed question can be done with a single word, either yes or no. We don't need 1,375 words all talking about a completely different topic. It doesn't matter what you don't understand about how everything began in the distant past. That's college-level biology for science majors. You're not there yet. But if you stick with me, we'll get there eventually, don't worry. First we need to show how we know that evolution really is happening and that "creation" definitely didn't happen. As Borg already pointed out, we were addressing the Phylogeny Challenge, remember? That's what you agreed to do. So we're going to take one step at a time to find out which of these are biologically related and whether any of these were magically created instead? Remember, if there is any validity to creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw must be found here or it simply can’t be anywhere else. That is the Phylogeny Challenge.

If evolution from common ancestry is NOT true and some flavor of special creation of as-yet unidentified kinds IS true, then there would be some surface levels in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry, and you have already admitted that you do. This is important for a few reasons. First, remember that the issue for Carolus Linnaeus and other pre-Darwinian scientists was the contention that new species could not come about except as an act of special creation by God. But then Linnaeus took a systematic look at all of visible biota together and realized that the Biblical notion of "kinds" clearly doesn't work, not with birds or beasts nor "creeping things", all of which are labels of an extremely lazy system without rules or function and is not practically applicable or consistent at all. For example, why are there different kinds and "sorts" of birds if birds are a "kind" unto themselves? We also know that bats are not birds and whales are not fish, and neither are lobsters. The notion of kinds also didn't work when he saw that there were so many species that are obviously just modified versions of the same thing, yet they cannot interbreed to reproduce fertile or even viable offspring "after their kind". Linnaean taxonomy was already profound evidence of an ancestral phylogeny of a series of daughter sets within multiple ancestral categories, "descent with inherent modification". Thus Linnaeus and others eventually realized that speciation has to be happening, but how could they explain the origin of new species? Darwin answered that by explaining "the origin of species by means of natural selection", and now we know of several other mechanisms too, and we have even observed them at work.

So you too have already abandoned Biblical classifications as inapplicable and you have accepted that even primary speciation definitely happens. Now, how far does that go? Because once creationists realized that speciation had been observed, then they tried to move the goal posts to some higher taxonomic category. But upon inspection, that still doesn't work. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all animal forms (if not the entire eukaryote collective), or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there must be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart—where what we thought was related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. At that point, they would be magically-created separate kinds, and distinctly unique from those listed around it as well as those apparently ancestral to it. Those who promote creationism’s bewildering inanity should be able to show exactly where and why uniquely created kinds could not be grouped together with any parent clades that would otherwise only imply an evolutionary ancestry. Throw away any other argument you might be thinking about; none of them compare to this!

View attachment 136

You said that you accept the morphological and genetic evidence that all of these Canids are related, even though the only ones that could be called the same "kind" are a portion of the blue section pertaining to Canus lupus, (wolves and domestic dogs). According to the study this image came from, domestic dogs were bred from Asiatic wolves only about 15,000 years ago. Note that sister genus Cuon (Dhole) and Lycaon (the African painted dog) are no longer genetically compatible with lupus, having diverged from wolves roughly 5 million years ago. Most of the other genera on this chart diverged closer to 10 million years ago, and have grown so far apart since then that they can't interbreed even with their closest kin anymore. Yet even you admit they are obviously all related, and we have the genome to prove it.

You can see and follow the dendrogram of Canidae (below) on my Phylogeny Explorer, a £100,000 project to depict the entire taxonomic tree of life as a single navigable online encyclopedia of biodiversity. It was built by We Are Borg and several other volunteer database engineers, taking information from online libraries of extant organisms like the Interactive Tree of Life and combining that with paleo-sources like Fossilworks, both of which are peer-reviewed. On our website, you can move either way through the tree and also increase the depth to see more of it at once. This is our 4th database so far. We have a 5th one already, which looks and works even better, but that one has millions of taxa to show, and many tweaks required to blend it all. So it will probably take another couple months before it goes live.

View attachment 137

As a student of paleontology, let me tell you that in almost every lineage, there are often more ancient groups in the fossil record than we have today. In this case, we have examples like Hesperocyon. At 42 million years old, this is the most primitive-type Canid known. There are also Borophagines, a group of "bone-crushers" dating back to 35 million years ago, and at least as distantly-related to modern dogs [Canini] as are foxes [Vulpini]. They're not included in the genomic study of Canids because they evidently died out at least a couple million years ago, and we don't have their DNA. But since you already admitted that even grey foxes [Urocyon] are biologically related to modern dogs (meaning that they evolved from a common ancestor) then can I assume that you would admit the same about Borophagines and Hesperocyonins? That all of these different genera evolved from a common ancestral "crown" species of canid?

I told you already. And you did not notice or did not care. Your entire approach is pseudo-scientific and nonsensical. And here is why.

In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, nor of population genetics, nor the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

Genetic Phylogeny

https://******************************/t1521-genetic-phylogeny

For many evolutionary biologists, the most significant single piece of evidence supporting the Darwinian theory of origins is the nested hierachical pattern that is formed when comparing various genetic sequences in different organisms. The similarities and differences, it is argued, map out into a kind of "Tree of Life". It is this consistent pattern created by numerous different genes and genetic sequences that appears to many to be extremely compelling evidence. 1

Richard Dawkins was asked, "Out of all the evidence used to support the theory of evolution, what would you say is the strongest, most irrefutable single piece of evidence in support of the theory?" (Link). Dawkins' response is most interesting:
.
"I think to me perhaps the most compelling evidence is comparative evidence, from modern animals -- particularly biochemical comparative evidence, genetic, molecular evidence.
If you take any set of animals, and identify the same gene in different animals, and you really can do that, because the letters of the DNA code -- that is, the same code in all animals -- and you really can find a gene which is the same -- in, say, all mammals. For example, there's a gene called FOXP2, which is a couple of thousand letters long, and most of the letters are the same in any mammal, so you know it's the same gene. And then you go through, and you literally count the number of letters that are different.
So, in the case of FOXP2, if you count the number of letters that are different between humans and chimpanzees, it's only about 9. If you count the number of letters that are different in humans and mice, it's, I don't know, 30 or something like that. Actually, frogs have them as well, you find a couple of hundred that are different.
So, you can take any pair of animals you like -- kangaroo and lion, horse and cat, human and rat -- any pair of animals you like, and count the number of differences in the letters of a particular gene, and you plot it out, and you find that it forms a perfect branching hierarchy.
It's a tree, and what else could that tree be, but a family tree.

The problem with this claim is, of course, is that more and more inconsistent phylogenies are being discovered and more and more genes and genetic sequences are studied. And, quite surprisingly for many scientists, many of the phylogenies based on these various genetic sequences are very inconsistent with each other and with standard Darwinian ideas based on morphologic classification models.

mollusks (scallops) are more closely related to deuterostomes (sea urchins) than arthropods (brine shrimp). Of course, this is not too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems more like a sea urchin than a shrimp. So, the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin is not surprising. However, in this light it is surprising is that a tarantula (also an arthropod) has a 92% correlation with the scallop. Here we have two different arthropods, a shrimp and an tarantula. How can a scallop be much more related to one type of arthropod and much less related to the other type of arthropod? This troubling thought led the authors of the Science article to remark:

Different representative species, in this case brine shrimp or tarantula for the arthropods, yield wildly different inferred relationships among phyla. Both trees have strong bootstrap support (percentage at node). . . The critical question is whether current models of 18S rRNA evolution are sufficiently accurate to successfully compensate for long branch attraction between the animal phyla. Without knowing the correct tree ahead of time, this question will be hard to answer. However, current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly . . .

But when the data does not match to have the wished result, things are simply made up, proposing LGT ( lateral gene transfer )

A 1999 Science article by Stiller and Hall:
"A precipitous acceptance of such widespread LGT places evolutionary biologists in the untenable position of adopting an unfalsifiable hypothesis, at least in terms of the techniques of comparative sequence analyses that currently dominate the field of molecular evolution. Any phylogenetic pattern inferred from any given gene can be fit to some suitable mix of conventional intraspecies gene transmission and interorganismal genetic promiscuity. Thus, unless more reliable evidence is uncovered, the scientific method requires that we invoke the idea of ubiquitous LGT only as a last resort." 2

Question : Why are the emergence of new body form, cell shape, organs and functions not analyzed in regard of FUNCTION and INTERDEPENDENCE, rather than just phylogeny? Cells of Multicellular organisms work in an INTERDEPENDENT fashion. A Merkel sensory cell bears only function when interconnected with the brain. A Bud taste cell only if connected to the nerve that goes to the right cortex in the brain to produce the sensation of taste. This leads with ease to the conclusion that back in the tree of life, there had to be a crucial point, where the development from unicellular to multicellular, and further branching producing new phyla and traits, required the emergence of new genes, instructing SYSTEM CHANGE, able to produce all at once new body members and organs that are interdependent. That would also mean the addition or mutation of multiple genes with multiple NEW instructions all at once through Darwin's natural selection. A hard sell..... But since Darwin's holy cow cannot be sacrificed, let's keep the practice of genetic phylogeny comparison. And when the evidence does not lead to the wished result of common ancestry, let's make up an assertion, like horizontal gene transfer, which will be swallowed by the audience as holy truth....

1. http://www.detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html
2. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/286/5444/1443



I also already demonstrated why Prokaryotes can not be the origin of eukaryotes. You simply neglected the Information. See the information which i did send today in the mailing list, you are included.

 

[AronRa]

I told you already. And you did not notice or did not care. Your entire approach is pseudo-scientific and nonsensical. And here is why.

In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, nor of population genetics, nor the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

So you refuse to answer my simple yes or no questions, which you know you should, on the excuse that the peer-reviewed studies that I have already shown, as well as all those I have yet to show, are, in your hallucinatory alternative reality, somehow "unscientific"? And your excuse for that obvious lie is your wholly false assumption that we have to know absolutely everything before we can know anything at all?

The difference between our positions is that I am trying to show you what we actually do know, so that you'll know it too. But you don't even want to know that we know anything, on the excuse that there will always be something that you refuse to even look at much less understand. Your religious objection is a god-of-the-gaps that can't even function in the presence of any actual knowledge, because you have already given up on your original objection to macroevolution and have immediately cowered from its obvious ramifications to the fantasy you prefer, which depends entirely on you lying to maintain your ignorance. You are neither honest nor brave enough to look into this any further, because you already know where it WILL lead. So you have not only defaulted on this challenge, but on the very philosophy of science as well.

I'm not going to reply to anything else you say. You're done. Go back to obscurity knowing that you have failed out of fear to even attempt the Phylogeny Challenge.

 

[rationalist]

So you refuse to answer my simple yes or no questions, which you know you should, on the excuse that the peer-reviewed studies that I have already shown, as well as all those I have yet to show, are, in your hallucinatory alternative reality, somehow "unscientific"? And your excuse for that obvious lie is your wholly false assumption that we have to know absolutely everything before we can know anything at all?

The difference between our positions is that I am trying to show you what we actually do know, so that you'll know it too. But you don't even want to know that we know anything, on the excuse that there will always be something that you refuse to even look at much less understand. Your religious objection is a god-of-the-gaps that can't even function in the presence of any actual knowledge, because you have already given up on your original objection to macroevolution and have immediately cowered from its obvious ramifications to the fantasy you prefer, which depends entirely on you lying to maintain your ignorance. You are neither honest nor brave enough to look into this any further, because you already know where it WILL lead. So you have not only defaulted on this challenge, but on the very philosophy of science as well.

I'm not going to reply to anything else you say. You're done. Go back to obscurity knowing that you have failed out of fear to even attempt the Phylogeny Challenge.

The main topics that I brought up have been:
1. The origin of life by natural means (abiogenesis) is a failed hypothesis
2. The origin of amino acids. You miserably failed to explain how 20 amino acids used in life could have been selected.
3. Preprogrammed instructional information
4. Many secular scientists acknowledge that there IS evidence of design in nature
5. The Genetic Code
6. The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is not substantiated by the scientific evidence
7. Common ancestry is not substantiated by the scientific evidence
8. To explain biodiversity, we have to look into biochemistry and source the real mechanisms that are in play to build complex organismal architecture, adapt to the environment, nutrition availability, and development.
8. Phylogenetic trees are irrelevant to substantiate evolution
10. Biodiversity is explained by Genetic and epigenetic information, and signaling networks, which are preprogrammed and prescribed to get a purposeful outcome.

Aron: Creation never happened and is a lie
Reply: First lie.
That is an unsupported claim since you cannot back it up with empirical proof. What you accused creationists of doing, is precisely what you are guilty of.
To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with searching for a purely material origin for the existence of reality and the physical world. However, if a claim based on those ideas is merely assumed to be true, and if that assumption is then used to institutionalize the attack on a valid scientific alternative, then that practice is not only illogical but is a clear abuse of the scientific practice. In fact, it is the ultimate “science stopper”. As it stands right now, if materialism is not true, there is no way under current practices for science to correct itself. And in perfect irony, it is this concept of self-correction that materialists routinely use to promote their dominance over the institution.

Aron: Your religious objection is a god-of-the-gaps that can't even function in the presence of any actual knowledge. If there was evidence that pointed to God, you would have shown it by now. Instead you lie
Reply: Second lie.
You keep making this false and unfounded accusation, despite the fact that Gods existence can be substantiated based on POSITIVE evidence:

125 reasons to believe in God
https://******************************/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

The obviousness of Creation is hidden from those who reject God. There is no evidence that we can exist without a creator.
Since there is being, being has always been. Beginning requires a beginner. Contingent beings depend on a necessary cause. Creation requires a creator. Design requires a designer.Laws require a lawmaker. Mathematics requires a mathematician. Fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner, Codes require a coder. Information requires an Informer. Translation requires a translator. Life has only been observed to come from life. Logic comes from logic, Consciousness comes from consciousness, Factories require a factory-maker, Objective moral values come from a moral giver. The "God of the gaps" argument is invalid. And so, that there is no evidence for God(s).

Aron: There is no evidence for Gods existence.
Reply: Third lie.
Your repetitive claim that there is no evidence for God's existence has been shown to be a lie. I have provided an entire list of SECULAR scientists who DISAGREE with you, and acknowledge that that that natural world looks suspiciously like a "fix" - but despite this - are unbelievers ( for whatever reason). So you cannot even resort to the canard that quotes of religious people are worthless because they are biased - the quotes i provided are mostly from non-theists.

Scientists, most of them not believing in God, had to acknowledge and admit the overwhelming evidence pointing to the overwhelming appearance of design in the natural world:
https://******************************/t1276p25-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god#8282

Aron: There is not pre-programmed information stored in genes.
Reply: Fourth lie.
DNA stores INDEED pre-programmed, prescribed, instructional, specified complex information as shown in the entire list of quotes from scientific papers:
https://******************************/t1281-dna-stores-literally-coded-information#8318

Aron: It is a lie to say that "operational science and historical science are two different "kinds" of science.
Reply: Fifth lie.
The distinction is perfectly valid, and objective and factual, because the two faculties deal with DIFFERENT questions.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science
"Historical science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, and archaeology. "Historical science" covers the Big Bang, geologic timeline, abiogenesis, evolution, and nebular hypothesis

"Operational science" is a term for any science that "deals with testing and verifying ideas.

Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method
Historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/81ca/78baf41581a70ddf0af3115ea8255aace4fb.pdf

Aron: Creationists use a lot of logical fallacies trying to argue against evolution; one of them is the straw-man, misrepresenting what evolution is. For example, the notion that evolution means one thing giving birth to or turning into another fundamentally different thing. But that too is a lie.
Reply: Sixth lie
No creationist or intelligent design institution makes such a claim. Neither the Discovery Institute, nor Reasons.org, nor AIG, nor ICR, nor any that i know of. It's a straw man, and misrepresentation.

Aron: Because, as I said, we know that Adam & Eve are just a fairy tale
Reply: Seventh lie
As many other claims, that has been another absolute claim, which you have been unable to prove.

Aron: I note Otangelo has dodged nearly every question put to him.
Reply: Eight lie
I have addressed basically every relevant topic brought up by you, and responded accordingly.

Aron: God's existence is impossible. YOU can't show that any such possibility exists, it would be a lie to say that it does.
Reply: Ninth lie.
Intelligence is a known reality and therefore it is entirely legitimate for science to consider it among the possible causal factors in a given phenomenon coming about. Intelligent agency is currently the only causally adequate explanation for the machinery by which the cell translates DNA code having its assembly instructions also coded in the DNA.

Aron: DNA is not a code in the sense you're talking about.
Reply: Tenth lie.
You misrepresented what I wrote. I never said that DNA IS a code. DNA stores instructional information THROUGH a genetic Code. And on top of that, it has also overlapping codes, which point to design.

Aron: So you refuse to answer my simple yes or no questions, which you know you should, on the excuse that the peer-reviewed studies that I have already shown, as well as all those I have yet to show, are, in your hallucinatory alternative reality, somehow "unscientific"? And your excuse for that obvious lie is your wholly false assumption that we have to know absolutely everything before we can know anything at all?
Reply: Eleventh lie.
I said that there is no dispute that dogs have wolves as common ancestors. This is entirely irrelevant because microevolution is not disputed.

Last, not least, you CLAIMED to be an honest truth seeker. But in face of the overwhelming evidence pointing to God brought to you, you rather than acknowledging it, have simply ignored it. That confirms and shows your bias.
You have an agenda, which is to promote atheism, DESPITE the evidence against it. And while accusing your opponents of lying constantly, it is you doing so all along. That's called projection.
But why should someone expect anything else from you, knowing your track record? I didn't.... After all, I did this exchange not because of you, but because of those that read these lines.

But, anyway. I do not see you as my enemy. I just think you are self-delusional. A blind, leading the blind.

Have a BLESSED 2021. God lets rain on the good and the bad. To believers, and unbelievers..... So he is blessing you too.....

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I'm not going to reply to anything else you say. You're done. Go back to obscurity knowing that you have failed out of fear to even attempt the Phylogeny Challenge.

You actually stuck with this one longer than I was expecting. I saw no point in interacting with rationalist since all (s)he does is skim post for keywords, then reply with copy/paste from a website (s)he made (with tons of wrong and outdated information). Although being a real person, rationalist function much like a chatbot, and thus is not worth the time of day.

 

[We are Borg]

You actually stuck with this one longer than I was expecting. I saw no point in interacting with rationalist since all (s)he does is skim post for keywords, then reply with copy/paste from a website (s)he made (with tons of wrong and outdated information). Although being a real person, rationalist function much like a chatbot, and thus is not worth the time of day.

Even worse the stuff he posts is not even his own words.

 

[Nesslig20]

Aron: DNA is not a code in the sense you're talking about.
Reply: Tenth lie.
You misrepresented what I wrote. I never said that DNA IS a code. DNA stores instructional information THROUGH a genetic Code. And on top of that, it has also overlapping codes, which point to design.

Me and a few others have noted that Otangelo has said "DNA is a code", but never mind that. Otangelo claims that, what is referred to as "the Genetic code" is literally, not metaphorically a code. Is it?

Let's first describe what the "genetic code" is.

The genome consists of molecules that we refer to with the abbreviation 'DNA', this molecule is a polymer, consisting of four variable nucleotides that differ in the base pairs, which we abbreviate with the letters "A, T, G and C". One of the functions of DNA is to direct (via an RNA intermediate) the synthesis of protein, which are also polymers of different monomers (amino acids). Proteins require a specific order of amino acids, and the order of amino acid during protein synthesis is determined by the order of "A, T, G and Gs" in the DNA. There are 4 variable nucleotides in the DNA but in proteins there are 20 variable amino acids, so multiple nucleotide are required to determine one amino acid. It turns out that for each amino acid, three nucleotides (called codons) are needed. These relationships between the codons and their respective amino acids is referred to as "the genetic code".

An example of a table that shows the "genetic code" is here below (one


Now what is a code? A code is a system or rules to convert a text of words, sentences, etc into a different set of words, or sentences, usually shorter for faster and simpler communication. The system is often simply refered to as a "code book". The police for example uses a sequence of numbers to abbreviate their messages to describe "crimes", "incidence" or "orders" to officers: e.g. "131" means "shooting".

Is the genetic code a code?? Well, you might say yes since the codons represent the amino acids in the same way. However, the crucial thing about a code is that it is semantically. Remember, the "letters" of ATGC in DNA do not represent actual letters or words, but are abbreviations of the base pairs. The same with the abbreviations of the amino acids. Neither the order of nucleotides in DNA nor that of amino acids in protein are literal "text" with semantic "meaning".

There is also another problem with calling this a "code" as it relates to another system of communication, which is called a "cipher". In common language, these are often used synonymous, but discussions such as this, the distinctions become very relevant. A code operate on linguistic units with meaning (semantics) with variable lengths, and the "meaning" of each unit is stored in a "code book". However, Ciphers is a set of mechanical instructions (an algorithm) work on symbols (syntax) with units of regular length. For example, a simple algorithm to encrypt a message can be "replace every letter with the next letter in the alphabet". Or in Morse code (which is actually a cypher) the set or rules replaces the letters with sequences of dots and dashes.

Looking at the table of the "genetic code" it can be more accurately described as a cypher, since it works on units of regular length, but then again, the units it acts upon aren't literal syntax (symbols). And lastly, the set of rules of the cypher (the algorithm) is prescriptive, as in these are the actual rules that dictate the encryption/decryption of the script. The "genetic code" on the other hand, which is the table that you see above, is definitely not prescriptive. When the ribosome is making protein, it isn't being dictated by a cypher at all. In fact, the ribosome performing protein synthesis is not even what defines the "genetic code", that being the enzymes that charge the amino acids to the transfer RNAs. But are those enzymes being dictated by a prescriptive set of instructions? No. They aren't. The "genetic code" is a description of the process after the fact that isn't seen beforehand or "ab initio".

In summary:

The "genetic code" is definetly not a literal code, nor is it a literal cypher, but it is better DEscribed as a cypher.

About the latter claim that "overlapping codes point towards a design"
What he is referring to is either the fact that two genes can overlap each other because they are on the opposite strands, or that they overlap on the same strand. Another way of genes to overlap is facilitated by the ribosome being imperfect in its translation, specifically during ribosomal frameshifting when it shifts on the reading frame because of a "slippery sequence" which is often used by viruses. These biological processes are rather error prone, but this can be later exploited and also evolved.

Why exactly Otangelo thinks this point towards design, I do not know. He gives no reason for this as usual.

In order for a new limb to evolve, let's say arms, not only would have there to be new information of where to locate the new limb in the body to be functional, ( hox genes ) and develop in the right sequence and order but also, at the same time, each of the seven mentioned items below would have to develop together :

1. Muscular system - essential for the movement of the body, maintains posture and circulates blood throughout the body.
2. Skeletal system - is the internal framework of the body.
3. Nervous system - is the part that coordinates its actions by transmitting signals to and from different parts of its body.
4. Endocrine System- hormones are signaling molecules that target distant organs to regulate physiology and behavior.
5. Circulatory system - is an organ system that permits blood to circulate and transport nutrients (such as amino acids and electrolytes), oxygen, carbon dioxide, hormones, and blood cells to and from the cells in the body.
6. Integumentary system - comprises the skin and its appendages acting to protect the body from various kinds of damage, such as loss of water or damages from outside
7. Lymphatic System It is part of the vascular system and an important part of the immune system, comprising a large network of lymphatic vessels that carry a clear fluid called lymph directionally towards the heart.

Do you agree with that ? If not, which you do you think is dispensable, and why ?

I would agree that they are indispensable, but it is not like, as you would likely argue, that for a limb to develop you need a multitude of mutations (or new "instructions") to direct new nerves, muscle, blood vessels, etc for the limb. For example, there is no genetically predetermined map of every blood vessel in the body. The development of blood vessels follows simple environmental cues, such as the lack or overabundance of oxygen. This means that, even if you have a mutation that makes your arm slightly longer (or maybe your arms became longer due to environmental reasons) you don't end up with a section of your arm that contains no blood vessels, nor did the distribution of blood vessels got "thined" out. Such changes are readily accommodated by such developmental mechanisms that are established before. And in the case of something as drastic as the evolution of a limb, the processes for the formation of blood vessels for this new limb are already there.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The good old information canard. I'm not sure I've ever seen it played so intently before, but canard it remains.

I wonder what 'information' directs hydrogen and oxygen molecules to bond in such a specific way to code for water.

 

[rationalist]

Good luck with your phylogeny project, Aron.

Besides there being overlapping coding that are, hierarchically, above the coding of DNA, we find that there also is overlapping coding within DNA as well:

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013
Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi- dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

“There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and therefore are poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs, read in opposite directions i.e. Both DNA strands are transcribed ( Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e. read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve simultaneously for protein-encoding and also serve as internal transcriptional promoters. Some sequences encode for both a protein coding, and a protein-binding region. Alu elements and origins-of-replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri-, and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (i.e. All DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation, and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns – which must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences do what they do, even as they also affect general spacing and DNA-folding/architecture – which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given that extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs 2003). There also appears to be extensive sequence dependent three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and the whole nucleus (Manuelides, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989), has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple “codes” (up to 12 codes).
Dr. John Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005

Moreover, there are very good mathematical reasons why overlapping coding within DNA will prevent one creature from ever being changed into another creature.

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
Conclusions: Our analysis confirms mathematically what would seem intuitively obvious – multiple overlapping codes within the genome must radically change our expectations regarding the rate of beneficial mutations. As the number of overlapping codes increases, the rate of potential beneficial mutation decreases exponentially, quickly approaching zero. Therefore the new evidence for ubiquitous overlapping codes in higher genomes strongly indicates that beneficial mutations should be extremely rare. This evidence combined with increasing evidence that biological systems are highly optimized, and evidence that only relatively high-impact beneficial mutations can be effectively amplified by natural selection, lead us to conclude that mutations which are both selectable and unambiguously beneficial must be vanishingly rare. This conclusion raises serious questions. How might such vanishingly rare beneficial mutations ever be sufficient for genome building? How might genetic degeneration ever be averted, given the continuous accumulation of low impact deleterious mutations?
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

A very simple way to understand the monumental brick wall any evolutionary scenario faces with the multiple overlapping coding found in DNA is with the following puzzle found on page 141 of the book ‘Genetic Entropy’ by Dr. Sanford.

S A T O R
A R E P O
T E N E T
O P E R A
R O T A S

Which is translated ;

THE SOWER NAMED AREPO HOLDS THE WORKING OF THE WHEELS.

This ancient puzzle, which dates back to at least 79 AD, reads the same four different ways, Thus, If we change (mutate) any letter we may get a new meaning for a single reading read any one way, as in Dawkins weasel program, but we will consistently destroy the other 3 readings of the message with the new mutation (save for the center).
This is what is meant when it is said that a poly-functional genome is poly-constrained to any random mutations.
This poly-constrained principle is why we never see the unlimited plasticity in organisms that was, and is, imagined by Darwin and his followers, and is also why random mutations, that have effects that great enough that we are able to measure them, are almost always deleterious in the effects that are measured:

“Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin’s gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless.”
R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990)

Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006

Moreover, at the morphological and behavioral level we find that Chimps and Humans are far more different than is commonly believed.
In fact, King and Wilson, who were the first ones to suggest that we are 98% similar to chimps at the genetic level, said that since the morphological and behavioral disparity between chimps and humans is so great then the morphological and behavioral disparity between humans and apes must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems since such similarity in the protein coding regions obviously could not explain that great morphological and behavioral disparity between chimps and humans.

In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn’t we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning:
“The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38).
Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38).
Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”

King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems.
David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163
Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson – 1975
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/pr...ngs/431s05_examples/king_wilson_1975(classic)

In fact, so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, since pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are, actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans. (I guess even hybridization knows no limits in the minds of some Darwinists).
Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than some other Darwinists, who opposed McCarthy’s radical theory, had first supposed it would be:

Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence – July 25, 2013
Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,,
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html

Of course there is not one single scrap of empirical evidence that suggests that such radically different creatures, such as pigs and chimps, could ever successfully produce viable offspring.
But alas, when your theory is built on storytelling in the first place, (and not on any real empirical evidence), then of course you are not going to be able to shoot down another ‘just so story’ just because you don’t like how the narrative contradicts your preferred narrative of man ascending from monkeys:

“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

In further note to King and Wilson’s observation that ‘nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart’, this observation by King and Wilson, by itself, places another severe constraint on the Darwinian evolution that, once again, calls the entire theory into question.
Simply put, since nearly every bone is readily distinguishable between chimps and humans, then multiple simultaneous coordinated changes are required instead of just individual changes, as is envisioned in Darwinism, so as to prevent catastrophic results:

K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems – June 11, 2010
Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream” (1)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...functional-integration-in-biological-systems/

“This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create….
(Quoted in “Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis Says She’s Not Controversial, She’s Right,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011).)

“The real number of variations is lesser than expected,,. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. …However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability… [If you have the time, read all of the following paper, which concludes] The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism.” (IGOR POPOV, THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT, 2009,
http://www.ludusvitalis.org/textos/32/32-11_popov.pdf

Perhaps that is why so many engineers support intelligent design since they can readily see the impossibility of the ‘engineering problem’ for Darwinian processes. Namely, Design must be implemented top down, with all the pieces coordinated with one another, so as to avoid catastrophic results for the system as a whole.
Moreover, in further note to King and Wilson’s contention that the morphological and behavioral disparity between humans and apes must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems, (since the genetic similarity obviously cannot explain that great morphological and behavioral disparity between chimps and humans), we find that it is indeed in the genetic regulatory regions that we find ‘orders of magnitude’ and ‘species specific’ differences between not only chimps and humans, but also in other species as well:
Just a reminder, genetic similarity is far more widespread, across very different species, than Darwinists expected the genetic similarity to be

Shark and human proteins “stunningly similar”; shark closer to human than to zebrafish – December 9, 2013
Excerpt: “We were very surprised to find, that for many categories of proteins, sharks share more similarities with humans than zebrafish,” Stanhope said. “Although sharks and bony fishes are not closely related, they are nonetheless both fish … while mammals have very different anatomies and physiologies.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ilar-shark-closer-to-human-than-to-zebrafish/

Kangaroo genes close to humans
Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/science News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118

First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals “Junk DNA” Surprise – 2007
Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,,
The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html

Where could we have learned but from Phys.org – Sept. 28, 2014
Excerpt: “We have basically the same 20,000 (30,000?) protein-coding genes as a frog, yet our genome is much more complicated, with more layers of gene regulation.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/where-could-we-have-learned-but-from-phys-org/

Yet it is exactly in these genetic regulatory networks that ‘orders of magnitude’ differences are found between species:

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33782/title/Evolution-by-Splicing/

Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013
Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes, previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA (messenger RNA) expression levels.,,,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm

“Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes.”
Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) – 9:29 minute mark of video

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Pt 2. – Richard Sternberg PhD. Evolutionary Biology
Excerpt: “Here’s the interesting thing, when you look at the protein coding sequences that you have in your cell what you find is that they are nearly identical to the protein coding sequences of a dog, of a carp, of a fruit fly, of a nematode. They are virtually the same and they are interchangeable. You can knock out a gene that encodes a protein for an inner ear bone in say a mouse. This has been done. And then you can take a protein that is similar to it but from a fruit fly. And fruit flies aren’t vertebrates and they certainly are not mammals., so they don’t have inner ear bones. And you can plug that gene in and guess what happens? The offspring of the mouse will have a perfectly normal inner ear bone. So you can swap out all these files. I mentioning this to you because when you hear about we are 99% similar (to chimps) it is almost all referring to those protein coding regions. When you start looking, and you start comparing different mammals. Dolphins, aardvarks, elephants, manatees, humans, chimpanzees,, it doesn’t really matter. What you find is that the protein coding sequences are very well conserved, and there is also a lot of the DNA that is not protein coding that is also highly conserved. But when you look at the chromosomes and those banding patterns, those bar codes, (mentioned at the beginning of the talk), its akin to going into the grocery store. You see a bunch of black and white lines right? You’ve seen one bar code you’ve seen them all. But those bar codes are not the same.,, Here’s an example, aardvark and human chromosomes. They look very similar at the DNA level when you take small snippets of them. (Yet) When you look at how they are arranged in a linear pattern along the chromosome they turn out to be very distinct (from one another). So when you get to the folder and the super-folder and the higher order level, that’s when you find these striking differences. And here is another example. They are now sequencing the nuclear DNA of the Atlantic bottle-nose dolphin. And when they started initially sequencing the DNA, the first thing they realized is that basically the Dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome. That is, there are a few chromosome rearrangements here and there, you line the sequences up and they fit very well. Yet no one would argue, based on a statement like that, that bottle-nose dolphins are closely related to us. Our sister species if you will. No one would presume to do that. So you would have to layer in some other presumption. But here is the point. You will see these statements throughout the literature of how common things are.,,, (Parts lists are very similar, but how the parts are used is where you will find tremendous differences)
http://www.discovery.org/multimedia...-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/

Moreover, unlike protein coding regions where there is some ‘non-catastrophic’ tolerance to random mutations, randomly mutating gene regulatory networks is found to be ‘always catastrophically bad':

A Listener’s Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin – December 4, 2013
Excerpt: “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.” –
Eric Davidson – developmental biologist
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html

Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species.
Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
If Darwinism were a normal science, instead of being basically the unfalsifiable ‘blind faith’ religion of atheists, this finding, by itself, should have been more than enough to falsify neo-Darwinian claims.

Of supplemental note to Richard Sternberg’s ‘bar codes are not the same’ between species quote. It turns out that the bar code pattern that Dr. Sternberg alluded to is irreducibly complex in its organizational relation to the individual genes:

Refereed scientific article on DNA argues for irreducible complexity – October 2, 2013
Excerpt: This paper published online this summer is a true mind-blower showing the irreducible organizational complexity (author’s description) of DNA analog and digital information, that genes are not arbitrarily positioned on the chromosome etc.,,
,,,First, the digital information of individual genes (semantics) is dependent on the the intergenic regions (as we know) which is like analog information (syntax). Both types of information are co-dependent and self-referential but you can’t get syntax from semantics. As the authors state, “thus the holistic approach assumes self-referentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the different codes) as an irreducible organizational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell”. In short, the linear DNA sequence contains both types of information. Second, the paper links local DNA structure, to domains, to the overall chromosome configuration as a dynamic system keying off the metabolic signals of the cell. This implies that the position and organization of genes on the chromosome is not arbitrary,,, http://www.christianscientific.org/...cle-on-dna-argues-for-irreducibly-complexity/

This has been a fairly long post, (even for me

), but hopefully for the open minded person who is honestly trying to see if either ID or Darwinism is true, this post has made it abundantly clear that neo-Darwinian explanations are grossly deficient on several different levels as to explaining the amazing integrated complexity we see in life, and that ID explanations are, by far, the most satisfactory explanations for that amazing integrated complexity that we see.

complementary notes:

Contrary to popular belief, the fossil record certainly, when looked at in its entirety, does not support the hypothesis of common descent,

(Disparity consistently precedes diversity in the fossil record)
disparity
[dih-spar-i-tee] noun, plural disparities.
1. lack of similarity or equality; inequality; difference:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-genes-unique-to-human-beings/#comment-585067

In fact, the ‘argument from form’ also gives us very good evidence that we each must have a soul so as to explain how the billion-trillion protein molecules of a human body can possibly cohere as a single unified whole for ‘precisely a lifetime, and not a moment longer’ (Talbott).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-genes-unique-to-human-beings/#comment-585035

Body plans, contrary to neo-Darwinian presuppositions, simply are not reducible to DNA, period! That finding pretty much renders any Darwinian argument for common ancestry based on DNA alone moot and void:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...-genes-unique-to-human-beings/#comment-584415

A Big Problem for Common Descent: Hundreds of "Active 'Foreign' Genes" Don't Fit the Standard Evolutionary Phylogeny
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/a_big_problem_f094701.html

Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/479824/

A Primer on the Tree of Life
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1481

 

[rationalist]

The development of blood vessels follows simple environmental cues, such as the lack or overabundance of oxygen.

Wow. Really ? Why does the same gene encode blood vessels, and blood?

And how do you explain the fact that blood is irreducibly complex?

The requirement of various interdependent and irreducible complex organs and systems to make blood.

https://***************************...ery-of-blood-cell-and-vascular-formation#4866

Little attention has been given to the origin of blood. Hematopoiesis is the description of how blood cellular components form. Blood is a fluid that circulates through the cardiovascular system. Blood and the developing blood cells and their precursors are produced in the bone marrow through pluripotential Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) which give rise to all ten different type of blood cells through the process of haematopoiesis These blood cells are: macrophages, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, erythrocytes, dendritic cells, platelets, T cells, B cells, and natural killer cells.

Bruce Alberts and his colleagues noted: “Blood contains many types of cells with very different functions, ranging from the transport of oxygen to the production of antibodies. Some of these cells function entirely within the vascular system, while others use the vascular system only as a means of transport and perform their function elsewhere (1994, p. 1161).


1. Macrophages are essential components of the innate immune system. They are a type of white blood cell that engulfs and digests cellular debris, foreign substances, microbes, cancer cells, and anything else that does not have the types of proteins specific of healthy body cells on its surface in a process called phagocytosis.


2. Dendritic cells are needed to control B and T lymphocytes, and capture and process antigens, express lymphocyte co-stimulatory molecules, migrate to lymphoid organs and secrete cytokines to initiate immune responses.


3. Neutrophils are a required type of immune cell that is one of the first cell types to travel to the site of an infection. Neutrophils help fight infection by ingesting microorganisms and releasing enzymes that kill the microorganisms. A neutrophil is a type of white blood cell


4. Basophils contain anticoagulant heparin, which prevents blood from clotting too quickly. They also contain the vasodilator histamine, which promotes blood flow to tissues.


5. Eosinophils effector functions include the production of cationic granule proteins and their release by degranulation, the production of reactive oxygen species such as hypobromite, superoxide, and peroxide, production of lipid mediators like the eicosanoids, enzymes, such as elastase. growth factors such as TGF beta, VEGF, and PDGF. etc....


6. Red blood cells ( erythrocytes ) are the most common type of blood cell and essential for the vertebrate organism's delivering oxygen (O2) to the body tissues—via blood flow through the circulatory system


7. Platelets are an essential component of blood whose function (along with the coagulation factors) is to stop bleeding by clumping and clotting blood vessel injuries


8. T cells are essential for human immunity.


9. B cells are a type of white blood cell that makes antibodies. B lymphocytes are part of the immune system and develop from stem cells in the bone marrow. Primary B-cell immunodeficiencies (B-PID) constitute a heterogeneous group of immunodeficiencies characterized by defective production of antigen-specific antibodies and predisposition to recurrent and severe infections


10. Natural killer cells are a type of immune cell that has granules (small particles) with enzymes that can kill tumour cells or cells infected with a virus. A natural killer cell is a type of white blood cell. Also called NK cell and NK-LGL. They are part of the innate immune defence against infection and cancer and are especially useful in combating certain viral pathogens




Origin of the blood vascular system

When and why did the cardiovascular system evolve in the first place? Why are certain blood circulatory systems open, while others are closed? Why are some systems lined by endothelium, whereas others have no cell lining? These are important questions because they provide insights into the design constraints, path dependence, trade-offs, and selective pressures that underlie human physiology and vulnerability to disease.

The number of identifiable themes or body plans (including the structural design of cardiovascular systems) is limited by developmental/genetic constraints and the laws of chemistry and physics.The first classification employs
molecular and/or morphological data to describe the evolutionary relationships among major metazoan lineages. The results, which may be represented in the form of phylogenetic trees (an example is shown in Fig. 1), can be
used to infer evolutionary histories. The deep branches on the animal tree of life remain controversial.

All unicellular and multicellular animals depend on diffusion to supply oxygen and nutrients, and to remove carbon dioxide. Diffusion, while energetically inexpensive, is a very slow process and works only over small distances. Simple multicellular organisms (diploblastic animals and some of the early triploblastic animals, such as flatworms) obtain oxygen by diffusion alone. They do so by minimizing metabolic demands, by assuming a body geometry that maximizes the surface area, by localizing most of their cells at the environment/body interface and/or by pumping external environmental water to their internal surfaces. However, these strategies have inherent design constraints that place an upper limit on body size. To achieve further 3-dimensional increases in size, it is necessary to employ internal transport and exchange systems (i.e. circulatory systems) to provide bulk flow delivery of substances (e.g. gases, nutrients, wastes) to and from each cell in the body.

Evolutionary implications

When approaching the evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and the endothelium, we must consider three important questions. First, when did these systems evolve? Second, why did they evolve? In other words,
what survival advantage do these structures confer at the level of species? Finally, how did the blood vessels and their endothelial linings develop ontogenetically (as evolutionary novelties) in the first place? In this section, we will consider each question in turn.

When did the blood vascular system and endothelium first evolve?
As we survey the present landscape of body plans, we find a wide variety of blood vascular systems (Fig. 7).



Some are closed, others are open. Some use hearts to propel blood, whereas others employ pulsatile blood vessels. Only a minority are lined by endothelium. When and how did all of these diverse structures evolve? The answer is likely through a combination of homology and convergence. The last common ancestor of vertebrates and annelids, or of vertebrates and mollusks was the ancestor of the protostome–deuterostome ancestor, which lived between 600 and 700 million years ago.

The Ediacaran emergence of bilaterians: congruence between the genetic and the geological fossil records 2

Unravelling the timing of the metazoan radiation is crucial for elucidating the macroevolutionary processes associated with the Cambrian explosion. Because estimates of metazoan divergence times derived from molecular clocks range from quite shallow (Ediacaran) to very deep (Mesoproterozoic), it has been difficult to ascertain whether there is concordance or quite dramatic discordance between the genetic and geological fossil records.

So basically, the dating is guesswork !

Here, we show using a range of molecular clock methods that the major pulse of metazoan divergence times was during the Ediacaran, which is consistent with a synoptic reading of the Ediacaran macrobiota. Therefore, the two historical records of life both suggest that although the cradle of Metazoa lies in the Cryogenian, and despite the explosion of ecology that occurs in the Cambrian, it is the emergence of bilaterian taxa in the Ediacaran that sets the tempo and mode of macroevolution for the remainder of geological time. The genetic fossil record strongly supports the notion that the diversification of metazoans in general, and bilaterian metazoans in particular, occurred during the Ediacaran Period, 635–542 Myr ago (Knoll et al. 2004, 2006).



The timing of the metazoan radiation according to the molecular clock.
The phylogenetic tree for 41 metazoan taxa rooted on the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae as determined by Bayesian phylogenetic analysis (see text) is shown. The deuterostomes are shown in red, spiralian protostomes in green, ecdysozoan protostomes in blue, cnidarians in orange, the homoscleromorph Oscarella in salmon pink, calcisponges in purple and demosponges in magenta. The nodes of the tree are positioned according to the optimum as determined from the Bayesian autocorrelated method of Thorne et al. (1998), as implemented in the software package ‘Multidivtime’ (Thorne & Kishino 2002) using a root prior of 1000 Myr ago (s.d.=500 Myr ago). The 95% HPD credibility intervals are shown in brackets. The red crosses are the estimates for clades with internal calibration points as determined by Bayesian algorithm Beast (Drummond et al. 2006) using uniform priors and an exponential rate distribution; black Xs are the estimates using exponential priors and the same rate distribution. Note that much of the metazoan diversification occurs during the Ediacaran (brown), which lies between the Cryogenian (ice blue) and the Cambrian (green).

Although the fossil record is scarce, it is widely believed that this precursor animal was a segmented bilaterian (triploblastic coelomate). If we are to accept that the blood vascular system evolved as a means to bypass the bulkheads of a segmented animal (see next section), then the first such system likely arose during this time. Flow would have been mediated by peristaltic vessels, perhaps like those described in the annelid. Blood probably percolated through spaces in the extracellular matrix, and thus, the system was by definition closed, albeit primitive. This scenario supports homology of all blood vascular systems. Over the past 600–700 million years of evolution, the blood vascular system has undergone significant modifications, in response to selective pressures experienced by individual phyla.

Why did the blood vascular system and endothelium evolve?
Circulatory systems most certainly evolved to overcome the time and distance constraints of diffusion, thus permitting increased body size and metabolic rates, as well as increased levels of integration and organization in Metazoa.


How did the blood vascular system and endothelium evolve?
The coelomic and blood vascular systems (as well as excretory systems) arose within the mesoderm of triploblastic animals. Indeed, the appearance of the mesoderm provided new building material for animal construction and allowed for the evolution of increasingly complex and large animals. At some early evolutionary stage, perhaps in the ancestral triploblastic bilaterian condition, a subpopulation of mesodermal cells differentiated into a
mesothelium whose apical side faced the coelom and whose basal side faced clefts (i.e. blood vessels) between the mesothelial walls.

The problem of all these explanations is that they are pure speculation, without any hard evidence whatsoever to back up the claims.

2. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1496/1435#F1

 

[Nesslig20]

Wow. Really ? Why does the same gene encode blood vessels, and blood?

And how do you explain the fact that blood is irreducibly complex?

The same gene encodes blood vessels and blood? No. Genes don't "code for" structures like that, they "code" for the primary structure of proteins. And not just a single gene is involved in both blood vessels and blood.

And blood isn't irreducibly complex. Some animals have components of ours "missing". There are also lot's of simpler circulatory systems and some animals don't even have a circulatory system whatsoever. This includes all the systems that you mentions.



In fact, the very paper you quote also shows this. So I recommend that everyone read this paper instead of reading Otangelo's quoting and then misreading what it actually says, or just dismissing the answers that they give.


But bear in mind that the answer I gave wasn't about the origin of the blood (vessels). It was about the origins of the limb and how these other systems needed to develop together, e.g. the blood vessels. So the blood vessels was already a given, I just needed to explain how they would develop at the same time as the limb did. You completely ignored the answer and then proceed to change subjects AGAIN and copy pasting a tirade of nonsense from your blog like you always do.

Acting more like a mindless bot operating on a script if anything, showing no interest in actually having a real conversation.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I love how we can cite from books that have evaded scientific peer scrutiny as if that's credible!

 

[We are Borg]

Or cite books that are decades old and are not longer relevant.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And copying and pasting his posts - from some other forum where he's the admin and apparently the only member - which in turn are copied and pasted from other sources, albeit without citation or acknowledgement of citing other people's work, doesn't just indicate the fakery, deceit and bullshitting engaged in by all Creationists, but has all the hallmarks of disturbing obsessiveness. Imagine writing thousands of posts on a forum with no members other than yourself! I can only assume Otangelo here is fucking overjoyed to finally have someone to regurgitate at.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And what is this flatulent pap?

In fact, so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, since pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are, actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans. (I guess even hybridization knows no limits in the minds of some Darwinists).

I never understand why bullshit artists think they're going to attain credibility, but I guess their lack of moral capacity means they don't understand that other people see incessant lying as a reason to consider them untrustworthy.

Pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps? I don't think you'd need a degree in comparative primate morphology to realize that this is absurd.

Sorry, I can't be bothered to read the entire copy pasted screeds, but this caught my attention and made me laugh, groan and grimace all at once.

 

[rationalist]

And copying and pasting his posts - from some other forum where he's the admin and apparently the only member - which in turn are copied and pasted from other sources, albeit without citation or acknowledgement of citing other people's work, doesn't just indicate the fakery, deceit and bullshitting engaged in by all Creationists, but has all the hallmarks of disturbing obsessiveness. Imagine writing thousands of posts on a forum with no members other than yourself! I can only assume Otangelo here is fucking overjoyed to finally have someone to regurgitate at.

Thats my virtual library, and i use the info there collected to tap the mouth like yours !!

 

[*SD*]

Thats my virtual library, and i use the info there collected to tap the mouth like yours !!

I think you can probably just stop now tbh. 5 pages of wasted time, let's not make it 6. Thanks.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Thats my virtual library, and i use the info there collected to tap the mouth like yours !!

I apologize: can you English that for me, please?

Even when properly Englished, I am not sure how any word in that sentence could dispute my characterization of the obsessive delusion apparent in your behavior. A virtual library? Sure! A virtual library indicative of obsessive delusions.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but reality just doesn't conform to wish-thinking. We judge the value of scientific knowledge by its utility, its application. Evolution is astoundingly useful across all fields of Biology, and even beyond into fields such as the development of artificial intelligence. The only people you could ever hope to fool with your manic crackpottery are people who don't have a fucking clue. Is that the peer group you're aiming for? You want to race to the bottom because that's the only place you can hope to compete?

 

[rationalist]

Evolution is astoundingly useful across all fields of Biology,

Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ?

Evolutionary biology contributes nothing to medicine. Comparative biology? Sure. Scientific method? Yep. Information science? Yep. So I'd say everyone who uses these latter methods are more compatible with IDers than Darwiners.

Seriously, Darwinism has only hindered science - ever heard of vestigial organs, phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, or junk DNA? All bogus, science-inhibiting fictions based largely on Darwinian thinking.

― Philip S. Skell, Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology
“I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done I their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: no. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome: the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions: improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers

Biomimetics

The evidence of the imitation
1. The hard work of the scientists to find and make the complex designs of nature is seeing and imitating the creation of the first creator who already created everything perfectly long time ago.
2. Thus, God the primeval supreme designer most probably exists.

The smart money is on biomimetics, a hot new trend built on intelligent design principles, assuming, as it does, that nature's designs are so good they are worth imitating. If any investors want to send even a small portion of Lonsdale's promised funding to support biomimetics projects or intelligent design organizations, such as Biologic Institute, Discovery Institute or Illustra Media, they can rest assured it won't take 150 years to show some returns.

Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1647-darwins-theory-did-it-bring-any-good-in-scientific-research

Daniel Sinclair
Evolutionary biology contributes nothing to medicine. Comparative biology? Sure. Scientific method? Yep. Information science? Yep. So I'd say everyone who uses these latter methods are more compatible with IDers than Darwiners.