Top evidence for Intelligent design

[RonO]

What seems to be strange is the lack of interest among the
IDiot/creationists in the top evidence for intelligent design. The ID
perps have finally put forward what they think are the best that they
have, and it's a non starter. Isn't that sad? Shouldn't IDiots at
least pretend to be interested?

To start, the ID Perps carefully avoid calling this scientific evidence
(read how they describe this list). This is obviously just more junk to
fool the rubes. What is tragic is that some of it is objectionable to
the largest support base (the young earth creationists). The ID perps
claim to list the evidence in the logical order of occurrence. That
alone should raise red flags for IDiots that don't believe in the
evolution of anything.

Here is the list for the IDiots that can't be bothered to look up what
the best evidence is. It looks like they purposely do not call this
scientific evidence, so you don't have to worry that you have to
seriously consider this junk when it conflicts with your creationist
beliefs.

1. The Origin of the Universe
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
3. The Origin of the Information in DNA and the Origin of Life
4. The Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
5. The Origin of Animals
6. The Origin of Humans

The first one is logical and it is a well known fact that it is the
closest science comes to a creationist type creation event. The Big Bang
has a lot of evidence going for it, but that evidence leads to other
facts about nature that creationists want to deny. That is the reason
that the Big Bang is one of the topics that creationists want to remove
from the public school science standards. The First Kansas creationists
dropped it from the state science standards when they got the chance
along with age of the earth, radiometric dating, and biological
evolution. I recall Texas tried to drop the Big Bang out of their
science standards. It is a no brainer that a lot of creationists do not
like the Big Bang.

This just means that it is a good thing the Big Bang isn't very good
evidence for intelligent design and like everything else in nature, the
fact of the Big Bang, does not exclude the possibility. Just like I
have said above a lot of creationists do not want to believe that the
Big Bang ever happened so that tells you what kind of evidence it is for
intelligent design.

Isn't this list sad? Why would they bother to put in Irreducible
Complexity when they don't even know if Behe's IC exists in nature. The
verification testing was never done. They haven't even tried to do the
"scientific" testing that they claimed was possible in the Dover
Testimony of both Behe and Minnich. Isn't it lame to include IC among
the best evidence for ID when Behe's type of IC likely doesn't even
exist in nature to study?

Dean should comment and tell us what the ID science actually is. It has
to be sad that the modern ID scam has been going on since the
publication of Pandas and People in 1989 and this is all they have to
show for it. Specified complexity never amounted to anything. Complex
specified information was an failure. Does anyone ever hear about the
new IDiot law of thermodynamics? The space alien alternative is still
the most scientific IDiot alternative, and it didn't make the list.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Links:
1.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

2.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/

3.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-information-in-dna/

4.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-irreducibly-complex-molecular-machines/

5.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-animals/

6.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-humans/

[RonO]

Isn't there a single IDiot/creationists out there that is willing to
defend this bogus list of the "best" evidence for intelligent design
creationism that the ID perps have?

Bill?
Jonathan?
Kalk?
Kleinman?
Eddie?
Alpha Beta?
Don Sauter?

Really, this is supposed to be the best that you guys have, so what do
you think of it?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 11/18/2017 5:58 PM, RonO wrote:

Kalk: you used to always go to the Discovery Institute for their bogus
arguments. You don't have to guess how bad the evidence for IDiocy is
anymore. This is the best that they could come up with in 22 years of
effort. They seem to take pains not to call this scientific evidence,
so take that for whatever it is worth when you have to deny reality.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

Since they aren't answering I'll indulge you as Devil's Advocate.

The best they have is actually on the HBO Documentary "Questioning Darwin." I was surprised by the actual intelligent people the journlists interviewed.

Of course the documentary doesn't prove Creationism, but it does bring up a few interesting points that aren't being acknowledged by mainstream science.


One of them is the fact that we only find whale fossils during time periods in which sea levels were much higher than today. And yet, scientists have made all kinds of assumptions about whale evolution. Now Himalayacetus has been found, and its older than all proposed "transitional" fossil ancestors of whales by as much as 10 million years.

Yet people still cling to the "short fuse" model of placental divergence and their preconstructed trees.

Creationism doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny itself, but every once in a while they bring up a good point that needs addressing.

Now could you tell me if a coding protein could help form something like a wing just like it helped form an eye in disparate lineages? How about bone ossification? You seem to be knowledgeable on coding proteins and I'd like to know a little more for my work. or at least determine whether it's a course of study worth undertaking to try and solve the problems with bird evolution.

[RonO]

Whales are a pretty amazing example. You have to find where on earth
the transitional species existed in order to look for transitional
species. If you kept looking for passenger pigeons in Asia and Africa
you'd never find any even though there were billions existing in North
America at one time.

We got outstandingly lucky with whales. Continental drift was happening
at the time and India was moving from around Madagascar up into and
crashing into Asia. It turned out that whales were evolving along one
of those coasts. I don't know if it was the Indian island continental
coast or the coast of Asia, but when India smashed into Asia those
sedimentary layers were uplifted. So sea side sediments were preserved
where they would eventually erode and fossils could be found instead of
being buried under millions of years of sediment or eroding away.

Really, we would not have those fossils if whales were not evolving
along one of those coasts and India did not smash into Asia.

>
> Yet people still cling to the "short fuse" model of placental divergence and their preconstructed trees.

Beats me what you are talking about. The molecular evidence indicates
that eutherian mammals had evolved before the dino extinction event and
that multiple eutherian mammalian lineages made it past that event. So
there doesn't seem to be much of a short fuse, just rapid divergence
once the niches were open due to the exit of dinos and species like
icthyasaurs and mosasaurs left open those environments for exploitation.

>
> Creationism doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny itself, but every once in a while they bring up a good point that needs addressing.

Or you just have to look at the evidence to see if there is any point at
all.

>
> Now could you tell me if a coding protein could help form something like a wing just like it helped form an eye in disparate lineages? How about bone ossification? You seem to be knowledgeable on coding proteins and I'd like to know a little more for my work. or at least determine whether it's a course of study worth undertaking to try and solve the problems with bird evolution.

I just put up a paper that indicates that it wasn't all protein coding
for the evolution of feathers. Some protein genes were duplicated and
altered, but it looks like you can get the same structures using genes
that alligators have, but expressing them differently. I also just put
up a thread on gene expression and we expect around 80% of the genetic
variation that we select for in our progress with agricultural plants
and animals to be regulatory genetic variation. Natural selection has
this same genetic variation to work with. So most of the genetic
variation that is important to selection is not protein coding variation.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

I agree with all of this. Which makes me wonder why they use those few coastal species to claim that whales evolved from a heterodont state. Extant whales are homodont. Basilosaurus and Himalayacetus may have been heterodont only due to a niche and the scarcity of food during the Aptian Age or just after the KPg.

Xenarthrans are homodont, and they are the most basal of placentals. Heterodonty seems to be nothing but a specialization, as specialized archosaurs also exhibit the trait.


Before himalayacetus, scientist thought whales didn't evolve until 46 million years ago. Because of the same things these Creationist pointed out, I knew better and was waiting for the news. They will find whales all the way back to the KPg eventually.

But science assumed since there was nothing in view of their microscope, that nothing was going on outside of its view. In this case, "uneducated" Creationists pointed out the mainstream's assumptions for me.

But, as you know, I was only playing Devil's Advocate.

> once the niches were open due to the exit of dinos and species like
> icthyasaurs and mosasaurs left open those environments for exploitation.

The latest paper shows that not just eutherians, but placentals have an origin deep in the Cretaceous and continued through the KPg with little interruption. Harshman has argued against me for weeks on paleontology that the divergence of major placental clades happened within a few million years of the KPg, based on an apologetics paper attempting to calibrate the molecular dates to post-KPg. His paper is dated.

In the paper I cite, major clades diverged much earlier.

In this paper, Harshman's view is considered the "short fuse" model whereas my stance is called the "long fuse model."

Here you go:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dbc3/a416c3c24eea1d2455b65eb479c20a6b3ea5.pdf

>
> >
> > Creationism doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny itself, but every once in a while they bring up a good point that needs addressing.
>
> Or you just have to look at the evidence to see if there is any point at
> all.
>
> >
> > Now could you tell me if a coding protein could help form something like a wing just like it helped form an eye in disparate lineages? How about bone ossification? You seem to be knowledgeable on coding proteins and I'd like to know a little more for my work. or at least determine whether it's a course of study worth undertaking to try and solve the problems with bird evolution.
>
> I just put up a paper that indicates that it wasn't all protein coding
> for the evolution of feathers. Some protein genes were duplicated and
> altered, but it looks like you can get the same structures using genes
> that alligators have, but expressing them differently. I also just put
> up a thread on gene expression and we expect around 80% of the genetic
> variation that we select for in our progress with agricultural plants
> and animals to be regulatory genetic variation. Natural selection has
> this same genetic variation to work with. So most of the genetic
> variation that is important to selection is not protein coding variation.

Very cool. Thank you. I have found evidence from probability, rather than from genetics or paleontology, that suggests Paraves' evolution to flightedness and bone ossification was polyphyletic. Can protein coding help me to explain how homologous traits like bone ossification can evolve independently in related species?


I would also like to talk about osteoderm evolution from scutes at some point in the future.

[RonO]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311506/pdf/12864_2015_Article_1213.pdf

The paper likely means that you are going to be wrong. Might not get
back to the Kpg because molecular branches are usually deeper in time
than the fossils we recover. Figure 2.

Ron Okimoto

[J.LyonLayden]

Ahh whales. Ok thanks; will definitely check it out. But "likely" isn't absolute so we will see.