IS ONE SIDED RESEARCH VALID?

[Ron Dean]

When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
catagotry. And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin, he
recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
"stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals seeking
to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.

Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat compairing
the results with observation and finally come to a conclusion.

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

[RonO]

You don't know how science works. One of the most impressive things
that any scientists could ever do is to demonstrate that the previous
generation was wrong about something, and that they have a better option
and can demonstrate it. Just because all creationism has been is denial
in the form of scientific creationism and intelligent design
creationism, obviously, does not make science work that way. Science
works and creationism never could do the science that was claimed
possible. Both IDiocy and scientific creationism claimed that they
could do the same science everyone else was doing, but they lied.

Look at your use of the Big Bang (#1 of the ID perp's Top Six), but #6
in the list that was ordered by their importance to IDiocy by Sewell.
There is no interest in doing any science pertaining to the Big Bang by
IDiots like yourself that have to lie about being creationists. The
reason that there is no interest in doing any science is because you
really do not want to understand that aspect of nature. You only use
the Big Bang for denial purposes. If this were not true you would have
been able to use the Top Six to build your best IDiot alternative based
on the science that you can do around each god-of-the-gaps arguments.

If IDiots were interested in doing science involving the Big Bang why
have the IDiot rubes that listen to the ID perps tried to remove the Big
Bang from their state's science standards. They succeeded in Kansas,
and tried in other states like Texas and Oklahoma. There is no interest
to understand what the Big Bang is to nature even though both the ID
perps and the Scientific creationists before them used the Big Bang the
same way that you just used it on TO.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UQNLl8XI5r0/m/QbWRmXfdBwAJ

IDiots don't have to disprove the Top Six. IDiots just have to deal
with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner. This is
something that creationists just cannot do.

Start with the Big Bang. Around 13 billion years ago your god was
responsible for the Big Bang. We have figured out quite a lot about
what happened after the Big Bang, so start building your best IDiot
alternative from your best argument. #2 is fine tuning. Your god would
have been responsible for fine tuning the physical laws before or during
the Big Bang, and things unfolded after that based on those physical
laws. Another round of fine tuning may have been required when our
solar system formed out of dead star material, stars that formed and
died after the Big Bang. It took around 8 billion years for the
material that our solar system is made of to be created.

Keep going with the other Top Six and figure out why IDiots like Glenn,
Bill and Nando can't deal with them. Glenn can't even acknowledge that
they exist as the IDiot Top Six. You keep claiming that you keep
forgetting to have ever dealt with them each time you put up something
like the Big Bang thread for the last 3 years. You keep putting them up
one at a time for your denial purposes, but you never deal with the
science that has already been done. Science that any alternative that
you can think up has to deal with. MarkE spent a lot of time trying to
define the gap in #3 (origin of life). It is one that you have put up
before also. MarkE figured out that he did not want to believe in the
god that fit into the gap that he was creating under conditions on earth
3.8 billion years ago. You have never dealt with what is around the gap
either.

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/

Don't lie about what I claim about the Top Six again and run away. You
just come back with the same stupid junk, so you might as well deal with
it now. Deal with the existing science and build your best IDiot
alternative out of the Top Six. The ID perps have already told you that
they are in their order of occurrence so that should help you out. If
you don't end up with something like Denton and Behe have already told
you about, you did it wrong and have to start over or ask for help.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron Dean]

On 1/17/21 9:35 PM, RonO wrote:
> On 1/17/2021 8:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory
>> or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>> scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>> thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into
>> this catagotry. And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin,
>> he recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
>> centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
>> "stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals
>> seeking to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.
>>
>> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
>> the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat
>> compairing the results with observation and finally come to a
>> conclusion.
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>>
>
> You don't know how science works.

I gave the source britannica.

> One of the most impressive things that any scientists could ever do is
> to demonstrate that the previous generation was wrong about something,
> and that they have a better option and can demonstrate it.  Just
> because all creationism has been is denial in the form of scientific
> creationism and intelligent design creationism, obviously, does not
> make science work that way.  Science works and creationism never could
> do the science that was claimed possible. Both IDiocy and scientific
> creationism claimed that they could do the same science everyone else
> was doing, but they lied.

Have you ever read anything by Michael Denton or Behe or anyone else of
intelligent design point of view. I doubt it. If not you get your
information from biases sources.

>
> Look at your use of the Big Bang (#1 of the ID perp's Top Six), but #6
> in the list that was ordered by their importance to IDiocy by Sewell.
> There is no interest in doing any science pertaining to the Big Bang
> by IDiots like yourself that have to lie about being creationists.

Creatiionist are Genesis based. I never appeal to Genesis. Furthermore,
creationist believe in a six 24 hour creation.  A literaal Adam and Eve
and talking snakes and the fall from the Garden of Edin. I reject this.
Creationist believe in a Universal flood: I do not. Creationist believe
that the God of the Bible is the creator. I never discuss religion, or
the Bible or God, I observe evidence of design, and design implies a
designer, but nothing about design identifies the designer.. Neither do
I know of any evidence pointing to the identity of the designer. Nor is
the identity of the designer important.

> The reason that there is no interest in doing any science is because
> you really do not want to understand that aspect of nature.  You only
> use the Big Bang for denial purposes.  If this were not true you would
> have been able to use the Top Six to build your best IDiot alternative
> based on the science that you can do around each god-of-the-gaps
> arguments.

Denial of the Big Bang. I do not! I have not need to build any
alternatives to the big bang. Every argument I offered are predicated on
evidence from science. Not god-of the-gaps!

>
> If IDiots were interested in doing science involving the Big Bang why
> have the IDiot rubes that listen to the ID perps tried to remove the
> Big Bang from their state's science standards.  They succeeded in
> Kansas, and tried in other states like Texas and Oklahoma.  There is
> no interest to understand what the Big Bang is to nature even though
> both the ID perps and the Scientific creationists before them used the
> Big Bang the same way that you just used it on TO.

You cannot carry on a honest, civil, respectful discussion with anyone
you disagrees with. Here again you slander, verbal attack, smear and
misrepresent. But really that's all you have.


I have nothing to do with whatever goes on in Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas
nor do I support them. I do not advocate ID in public schools. I accept
the evidence that the Big Bang happened, but I have no idea what caused
it to go "bang".

>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UQNLl8XI5r0/m/QbWRmXfdBwAJ
>
> IDiots don't have to disprove the Top Six.  IDiots just have to deal
> with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner. This is
> something that creationists just cannot do.
>
> Start with the Big Bang. Around 13 billion years ago your god was
> responsible for the Big Bang.

I've never made this argument! I do_not_ bring god(s) to TO.

> We have figured out quite a lot about what happened after the Big
> Bang, so start building your best IDiot alternative from your best
> argument.  #2 is fine tuning.  Your god would have been responsible
> for fine tuning the physical laws before or during the Big Bang, and
> things unfolded after that based on those physical laws.  Another
> round of fine tuning may have been required when our solar system
> formed out of dead star material, stars that formed and died after the
> Big Bang.  It took around 8 billion years for the material that our
> solar system is made of to be created.

Here again, I never bring god(s) to TO. So, why do you continue to
misrepresent me and my positions?

--
talk origins

[RonO]

On 1/18/2021 12:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/17/21 9:35 PM, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/17/2021 8:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory
>>> or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>>> scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>>> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>>> thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into
>>> this catagotry. And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin,
>>> he recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
>>> centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
>>> "stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals
>>> seeking to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.
>>>
>>> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>>> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
>>> the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat
>>> compairing the results with observation and finally come to a
>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>>>
>>
>> You don't know how science works.
> I gave the source britannica.

You don't know how science works. The reason that you do not know is
willful ignorance. Britannica is likely not that bad, you just remain
ignorant of many of the the things that they told you.

>> One of the most impressive things that any scientists could ever do is
>> to demonstrate that the previous generation was wrong about something,
>> and that they have a better option and can demonstrate it.  Just
>> because all creationism has been is denial in the form of scientific
>> creationism and intelligent design creationism, obviously, does not
>> make science work that way.  Science works and creationism never could
>> do the science that was claimed possible. Both IDiocy and scientific
>> creationism claimed that they could do the same science everyone else
>> was doing, but they lied.
> Have you ever read anything by Michael Denton or Behe or anyone else of
> intelligent design point of view. I doubt it. If not you get your
> information from biases sources.

Yes, Have you? Really, use the Top Six in an honest and
straightforward manner to build something instead of wallow in denial.
If you do not come up with an alternative similar to what Behe and
Denton have told you exists, you did it wrong and should ask for help.

>>
>> Look at your use of the Big Bang (#1 of the ID perp's Top Six), but #6
>> in the list that was ordered by their importance to IDiocy by Sewell.
>> There is no interest in doing any science pertaining to the Big Bang
>> by IDiots like yourself that have to lie about being creationists.
> Creatiionist are Genesis based. I never appeal to Genesis. Furthermore,
> creationist believe in a six 24 hour creation.  A literaal Adam and Eve
> and talking snakes and the fall from the Garden of Edin. I reject this.
> Creationist believe in a Universal flood: I do not. Creationist believe
> that the God of the Bible is the creator. I never discuss religion, or
> the Bible or God, I observe evidence of design, and design implies a
> designer, but nothing about design identifies the designer.. Neither do
> I know of any evidence pointing to the identity of the designer. Nor is
> the identity of the designer important.

No creationists are not just Genesis based. The ID perps profess to run
a "Big Tent" creationist operation. All religions are welcome that want
to participate. They even call it their Bit Tent strategy. The type of
creationists that can still lie to themselves about the intelligent
design creationists scam can be any type of creationist. You have
Kalkidas as an obvious example for how long on TO. You do not see Hindu
ID perps at the Discovery Institute only due to the fact that the ID
perps are religious bigots and do not want to support any other religion
but their own. Really the guys that ran the Wedge strategy and wanted
to teach their brand of creationism in the public schools did not have
to change the name of what they were doing. The Supreme court had
already told them that they could teach creation science in a
comparative religion class, but the ID perps did not want to let their
kids know about other religions. The Top Six were all used by the
creation science ploy. There turned out to be no difference between
intelligent design creationism and scientific creationism in terms of
the creation science.

Hiding and lying about their religious beliefs is a major part of the ID
scam. The whole point of the name change was to try to fool the courts
that would have to hear the cases. They did not fool the court in the
only example of the failure of their bait and switch scam.

You aren't fooling anyone either. At least, no one but yourself.
Really, most competent and half way honest IDiots already went back to
being plain old religious creationists after Dover. The ID Network of
academics quit and went home. The IDiot science organization (ISCID)
died when most everyone quit except the ID perps making a living off the
scam. There never was any ID science, so there is no longer a reason to
lie about the situation any longer. Phillip Johnson quit the ID scam
after the IDiot federal court loss and admitted that the ID science had
never existed, and that it was up to the ID perps claiming that some
science could be done to produce such science. Johnson was the guy that
the other ID perps claimed got the scam rolling, he developed their
Wedge strategy, and he never retracted his admission nor supported the
ID scam after it in public. He made that admission 14 years ago, so why
are you still an IDiot stupid enough to use the IDiot scam junk?

>> The reason that there is no interest in doing any science is because
>> you really do not want to understand that aspect of nature.  You only
>> use the Big Bang for denial purposes.  If this were not true you would
>> have been able to use the Top Six to build your best IDiot alternative
>> based on the science that you can do around each god-of-the-gaps
>> arguments.
> Denial of the Big Bang. I do not! I have not need to build any
> alternatives to the big bang. Every argument I offered are predicated on
> evidence from science. Not god-of the-gaps!

What a willfully ignorant boob. You do not have to build an alternative
to the Big Bang. You just have to learn something from the legitimate
science and build your IDiot alternative using that science. Denial
isn't building anything. 13 billion years ago your god was responsible
for creating the Big Bang. What do we know happened after that? 8
billion years later your god fine tuned our solar system using materials
that it took 8 billion years worth of star deaths to create. Build your
best alternative with the Top Six and see why no other IDiot has ever
helped you out when you have asked for assistance with them. Really,
why do you think that Glenn can't even acknowledge that they exist? Why
do you think that Sewell broke up #2 (fine tuning) into two separate
events? He didn't want to face the 8 billion years between those two
events and what we have figured out about them.

They are only supposed to be used for IDiots to lie to themselves about
them one at a time, just like you usually do. They are not meant to be
used to learn anything about nature because in isn't anything that they
want to believe.

>>
>> If IDiots were interested in doing science involving the Big Bang why
>> have the IDiot rubes that listen to the ID perps tried to remove the
>> Big Bang from their state's science standards.  They succeeded in
>> Kansas, and tried in other states like Texas and Oklahoma.  There is
>> no interest to understand what the Big Bang is to nature even though
>> both the ID perps and the Scientific creationists before them used the
>> Big Bang the same way that you just used it on TO.
>
> You cannot carry on a honest, civil, respectful discussion with anyone
> you disagrees with. Here again you slander, verbal attack, smear and
> misrepresent. But really that's all you have.

You apparently are not competent enough to understand what is being
discussed, and do not even know what slander is.

What have I stated that is not true? It may make IDiots like you look
bad, but it is only stating the truth. A reality that you can't deal
with except by calling it slander.

>
>
> I have nothing to do with whatever goes on in Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas
> nor do I support them. I do not advocate ID in public schools. I accept
> the evidence that the Big Bang happened, but I have no idea what caused
> it to go "bang".

You have to deal with how other creationists have dealt with the Big
Bang in order to understand why all the other IDiots are running from
the Top Six instead of dealing with them in an honest and
straightforward manner. Really, even though the Big Bang still makes
the list as one of the top fool the creationist rubes pieces of junk,
most IDiots can't stand to know that it happened. They don't want their
kids to be taught about it and when it is on the science standards the
students are expected to understand what the Big Bang is. IDiots really
do not want their kids to understand the Big Bang. They only use it as
a creationist denial argument like you use it.

>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UQNLl8XI5r0/m/QbWRmXfdBwAJ
>>
>> IDiots don't have to disprove the Top Six.  IDiots just have to deal
>> with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner. This is
>> something that creationists just cannot do.
>>
>> Start with the Big Bang. Around 13 billion years ago your god was
>> responsible for the Big Bang.
> I've never made this argument! I do_not_ bring god(s) to TO.

That is the point, you have never dealt with the Big Bang in an honest
and straightforward manner. You have just used it to lie to yourself
for a bit before going on to another of the Top Six to lie to yourself
again. If you were really interested in the science you would be
learning something about the Big Bang and using it to build your best
creationist alternative. You should use it to understand what your god
did and has done.

>> We have figured out quite a lot about what happened after the Big
>> Bang, so start building your best IDiot alternative from your best
>> argument.  #2 is fine tuning.  Your god would have been responsible
>> for fine tuning the physical laws before or during the Big Bang, and
>> things unfolded after that based on those physical laws.  Another
>> round of fine tuning may have been required when our solar system
>> formed out of dead star material, stars that formed and died after the
>> Big Bang.  It took around 8 billion years for the material that our
>> solar system is made of to be created.
> Here again, I never bring god(s) to TO. So, why do you continue to
> misrepresent me and my positions?

Why keep lying, what is your intelligent designer? If you still want to
keep lying to yourself, just put in "intelligent designer" where your
god would be and build your best intelligent designer scenario using
what you can learn about nature.

Lying about the issue is simply lying, and you still don't want to
understand anything about nature. The claim that IDiots were interested
in the science was bogus. The scientific creationists had already
demonstrated that creationists did not want to deal with the science.
The ID perps had to change the name of what they were doing because they
had no creation science that they wanted to do, and they never attempted
to do any ID science. Name a single testable IDiot hypothesis that was
ever put forward and tested. Your claim of being interested in the
science should die with that realization and how you can't deal with the
Top Six as actual science and learn something about the creation.

Ron Okimoto

[Burkhard]

Ron Dean wrote:
>
> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
> searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
> scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
> thrown into file 13.

so you claim - but whenever we got into detail with this, it became
clear you simply misunderstood/misrepresented the nature of this
allegedly counter evidence

Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
> catagotry. And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin, he
> recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
> centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
> "stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals seeking
> to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.

Only that they don't. Stasis has been reported, and is not contradicting
Darwin, merely a result of stable environments where fewer changes are
likely to be beneficial. You keep misrepresenting what "gradualism"
meant in Darwin, despite having been given direct cites form the text.
And you keep misrepresenting Gould. There is no conflict between Gould
and Darwin, only between your misunderstood version of both.

>
> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
> the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat compairing
> the results with observation and finally come to a conclusion.

Which is what is done - just tat you reject arbitrarily (some) results
of these tests because they don't fir your preconceptions. In particular
you reject the observations we can make about rate of fossilization,
bias in the preservation of fossils and all the other observations that
form the cornerstone of taphonomy as "excuse making"


>
> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 21:03:40 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
>searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
>catagotry.

Incorrect. As I and many others have pointed out to you many times
over many years, neither "stasis" nor "living fossils" are ignored,
overlooked, or thrown out, nor are they evidence contrary to
evolution. At best, they are evidence against your strawman version
of evolution. Your comments above are just one of your many
Creationist PRATTs you like to spam.

>And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin, he
>recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
>centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
>"stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals seeking
>to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.
>
>Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
>the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat compairing
>the results with observation and finally come to a conclusion.
>
>https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

You conflate "hypothesis" and "theory". Hypotheses are tentative
explanations. Scientific theories are tested explanations. There's a
difference. This doesn't mean theories explain everything. It does
mean theories explain a large set of observations better than
competing explanations.

With that in mind, apply the scientific method to your hypothesis,
that purposeful design is the best explanation for X, where X is any
of the natural phenomena you spam. Explain how your hypothesis better
explains X than unguided natural processes. And by "better explains",
I don't mean "it feels better to me".

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/17/21 6:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>
> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
> searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
> scientific methodology?

That's not (all of) what researchers did. A crucial part of the
scientific method -- there could be no science without it -- is looking
for evidence *against* the theory. Researchers did that, and they found
some. So they revised the theory to replace blended inheritance with
discrete inheritance of genes, and they made other revisions about other
more minor details. (Part of those revisions is a more nuanced view of
the fossil record.) Today, there are still some open questions within
the field, but no disconfirming evidence, despite people still looking.

> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
> thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this

> category.

In point of fact, they do not. What they falsify is how evolution works
according to *your* understanding. That has already long been known to
be false.

> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
> the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat compairing
> the results with observation and finally come to a conclusion.

That is the fifth-grade version of the scientific method. As I said
above, the most important part of the scientific method is deliberately
looking for indications that you might be wrong. Need I mention that
you have never done that with your design hypothesis? (Nor has any
other design advocate.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"If one day, my words are against science, choose science."
- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

[Ron Dean]

False accusation: not that it matters to you!

Who is they? Unlike you I read both sides.

One of the most impressive things that any scientists could ever do is
to demonstrate that the previous generation was wrong about something,
and that they have a better option and can demonstrate it.  Just because
all creationism has been is denial in the form of scientific creationism
and intelligent design creationism, obviously, does not make science
work that way.  Science works and creationism never could do the science
that was claimed possible. Both IDiocy and scientific creationism
claimed that they could do the same science everyone else was doing, but
they lied.

>> Have you ever read anything by Michael Denton or Behe or anyone else
>> of intelligent design point of view. I doubt it. If not you get your
>> information from biases sources.
>
> Yes,  Have you? Really, use the Top Six in an honest and
> straightforward manner to build something instead of wallow in denial.
> If you do not come up with an alternative similar to what Behe and
> Denton have told you exists, you did it wrong and should ask for help.
>

What am I denying: why do I need an alternative?

Everything I advocate is the result of my own research and study. As far
as I'm concerned the strongest evidence points to design. I'm in
reference to: 1) the origin or life from dead matter. the origin of the
DNA Code and living cells with the ability to reproduce. 2) the origin
of the DNA edit and repair machinery. 3) The origin of the homeobox
genes (IE Universal Master Control Genes) 4) the real story of life as
revealed in the fossil record: abrupt appearance of new forms without
known precursors, the virtual universal existence of "stasis" as typical
of the fossil record rather than finely graduated gradual transitional
fossils. 5) biology's big bang of the Cambrian and the apparent of most
phylum.

You are a wAZDXCZBVSAQzzs6Zziuillofully misrepresenting me.

>
>>>
>>> If IDiots were interested in doing science involving the Big Bang
>>> why have the IDiot rubes that listen to the ID perps tried to remove
>>> the Big Bang from their state's science standards.  They succeeded
>>> in Kansas, and tried in other states like Texas and Oklahoma.  There
>>> is no interest to understand what the Big Bang is to nature even
>>> though both the ID perps and the Scientific creationists before them
>>> used the Big Bang the same way that you just used it on TO.
>>
>> You cannot carry on a honest, civil, respectful discussion with
>> anyone you disagrees with. Here again you slander, verbal attack,
>> smear and misrepresent. But really that's all you have.
>
> You apparently are not competent enough to understand what is being
> discussed, and do not even know what slander is.
>
> What have I stated that is not true?  It may make IDiots like you look
> bad, but it is only stating the truth.  A reality that you can't deal
> with except by calling it slander.
>

Vertually everything you said about me is a damn lie a deliberate
misrepresentation.

>>
>>
>> I have nothing to do with whatever goes on in Texas, Oklahoma or
>> Kansas nor do I support them. I do not advocate ID in public schools.
>> I accept the evidence that the Big Bang happened, but I have no idea
>> what caused it to go "bang".
>
> You have to deal with how other creationists have dealt with the Big
> Bang in order to understand why all the other IDiots are running from
> the Top Six instead of dealing with them in an honest and
> straightforward manner.  Really, even though the Big Bang still makes
> the list as one of the top fool the creationist rubes pieces of junk,
> most IDiots can't stand to know that it happened. They don't want
> their kids to be taught about it and when it is on the science
> standards the students are expected to understand what the Big Bang
> is.  IDiots really do not want their kids to understand the Big Bang. 
> They only use it as a creationist denial argument like you use it.
>

You a just a dishonest, false accuser misrepresenting me.

>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UQNLl8XI5r0/m/QbWRmXfdBwAJ
>>>
>>> IDiots don't have to disprove the Top Six.  IDiots just have to deal
>>> with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner. This is
>>> something that creationists just cannot do.
>>>
>>> Start with the Big Bang. Around 13 billion years ago your god was
>>> responsible for the Big Bang.

PROVE THIS! No where and at no time can you find where I made any such
claim!

>> I've never made this argument! I do_not_ bring god(s) to TO.
>
> That is the point, you have never dealt with the Big Bang in an honest
> and straightforward manner.  You have just used it to lie to yourself
> for a bit before going on to another of the Top Six to lie to yourself
> again.  If you were really interested in the science you would be
> learning something about the Big Bang and using it to build your best
> creationist alternative.  You should use it to understand what your
> god did and has done.
>

IOW if I'm not using your flawed logic, then I not honestly dealing with ID.

>>> We have figured out quite a lot about what happened after the Big
>>> Bang, so start building your best IDiot alternative from your best
>>> argument.  #2 is fine tuning.  Your god would have been responsible
>>> for fine tuning the physical laws before or during the Big Bang, and
>>> things unfolded after that based on those physical laws.  Another
>>> round of fine tuning may have been required when our solar system
>>> formed out of dead star material, stars that formed and died after
>>> the Big Bang.  It took around 8 billion years for the material that
>>> our solar system is made of to be created.
>> Here again, I never bring god(s) to TO. So, why do you continue to
>> misrepresent me and my positions?
>
> Why keep lying, what is your intelligent designer?

As I've stated previously, I know of no evidence pointing to the
identity of the designer. But since there is design in nature a designer
is inferred.

> If you still want to keep lying to yourself, just put in "intelligent
> designer" where your god would be and build your best intelligent
> designer scenario using what you can learn about nature.

If you continue to misrepresent me, I will refuse any further
commutations with you. Unless you alter you behavior and become more
civil and honest in your dealings with me, this is good bye!

>
> Lying about the issue is simply lying, and you still don't want to
> understand anything about nature.  The claim that IDiots were
> interested in the science was bogus.  The scientific creationists had
> already demonstrated that creationists did not want to deal with the
> science. The ID perps had to change the name of what they were doing
> because they had no creation science that they wanted to do, and they
> never attempted to do any ID science.  Name a single testable IDiot
> hypothesis that was ever put forward and tested.  Your claim of being
> interested in the science should die with that realization and how you
> can't deal with the Top Six as actual science and learn something
> about the creation.

Still slanderous wording. ie Idiot, perps

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

On 1/18/21 7:47 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory
>> or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>> scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>> thrown into file 13.
>
> so you claim - but whenever we got into detail with this, it became
> clear you simply misunderstood/misrepresented the nature of this
> allegedly counter evidence
>
>  Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this

Both are observed and are real. This is more than one can say about
finely graduated transitional forms which are required for both rapid
and slow evolutionary change.

>> catagotry. And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin, he
>> recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
>> centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
>> "stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals
>> seeking to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.
>
> Only that they don't. Stasis has been reported, and is not
> contradicting Darwin, merely a result of stable environments where
> fewer changes are likely to be beneficial. You keep misrepresenting
> what "gradualism" meant in Darwin, despite having been given direct
> cites form the text. And you keep misrepresenting Gould. There is no
> conflict between Gould and Darwin, only between your misunderstood
> version of both.
>
>>
>> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
>> the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat
>> compairing the results with observation and finally come to a
>> conclusion.
>
> Which is what is done - just tat you reject arbitrarily (some) results
> of these tests because they don't fir your preconceptions. In
> particular you reject the observations we can make about rate of
> fossilization, bias in the preservation of fossils and all the other
> observations that form the cornerstone of taphonomy as "excuse making"
>
>
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>>
>

--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

On 1/18/21 11:32 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 21:03:40 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
>> searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>> scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>> thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
>> catagotry.
>
> Incorrect. As I and many others have pointed out to you many times
> over many years, neither "stasis" nor "living fossils" are ignored,
> overlooked, or thrown out, nor are they evidence contrary to
> evolution.

Of course you would say that, but for almost a century "stasis" was
observed, but when searching for evidence supporting evolution "stasis"
was generally ignored or seen as "no evidence". Evolution theory is so
elastic that it can be expanded to accommodate virtually any discovery.
Case in point: evolution is about change, stasis is the opposite of
change. You cannot argue rationally that change and changeless are the
same,  they are opposites! The only human endeavor in which this is
accepted is where evolution is concerned.

If stasis supported evolution, it would not have been seen as "no
evidence" until G & E. Indeed, regardless of how rapid or how slow
evolutionary change occurs, there should be numerous finely graded
transitional forms. Now stasis has bee observed and is real. These 
numerous finely grade series of fossil forms are still missing. The ones
that are presumed to be transitional have little or no linkage to other
presumed transitional fossils. The living fossils are observed and are
real and they are virtually the same as ancient forms with little or no
physical change from their ancient predecessors

> At best, they are evidence against your strawman version
> of evolution. Your comments above are just one of your many
> Creationist PRATTs you like to spam.

I'm surprised at you, Jill, why are you engaging in these personal
insults against me? Is it reassuring and comforting to you? I expect
this from Ron O, but not you!

>> And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin, he
>> recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
>> centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
>> "stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals seeking
>> to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.
>>
>> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
>> the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat compairing
>> the results with observation and finally come to a conclusion.
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>
> You conflate "hypothesis" and "theory". Hypotheses are tentative
> explanations. Scientific theories are tested explanations. There's a
> difference. This doesn't mean theories explain everything. It does
> mean theories explain a large set of observations better than
> competing explanations.

A theory is after testing etc and conformation. A hypothesis is the
potential explanation that is tested. A hypothesis is more likely to be
cast aside than a theory. IOW a theory carries more weight than a
hypothesis.

>
> With that in mind, apply the scientific method to your hypothesis,
> that purposeful design is the best explanation for X, where X is any
> of the natural phenomena you spam. Explain how your hypothesis better
> explains X than unguided natural processes. And by "better explains",
> I don't mean "it feels better to me".
>

Science has been placed in a small narrow box, called naturalism, It
cannot look outside the box for answers. This is a comparatively resent
development.

--
talk origins

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 1:50:34 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/18/21 7:37 AM, RonO wrote:

<big snip to get to a couple of points>

> Vertually everything you said about me is a damn lie a deliberate
> misrepresentation.

So why on earth do you keep engaging with Ron O? You know he'll insult you. Is it easier to respond to insults than to arguments?

<snip>

> > Why keep lying, what is your intelligent designer?
> As I've stated previously, I know of no evidence pointing to the
> identity of the designer. But since there is design in nature a designer
> is inferred.

You cannot get away from the question that easily. You invoke a designer to explain certain things that you think cannot be explained by current science. The specific things you need the Designer to account for, automatically create a set of criteria your designer must fulfill.

For example, you wan the designer to explain the origin of life. If you've already concluded that no natural explanation for the origin of life is possible, then you are already postulating a supernatural designer. If you don't know whether a natural explanation (including design by a natural designer) is possible but consider a natural designer possible, then you are arguing that that natural designer must have been present on earth when life on earth originated. That's a specific attribute you are attributing to the designer.

Now you also say that natural selection cannot account for the appearance of new species or for the fossil record in general, which according to your understanding of what evolution predicts, fails to show gradual transitions. So if your designer is to account for the appearance of new species at many points separated by many millions of years, you are automatically positing a designer that acted on the earth many times, millions of times, indeed, over the course of a few billion years. That's a specific claim. Unless the designer is extremely good at covering his tracks, you might expect to find evidence of at least its more recent visits.

So, automatically the gaps in knowledge that the designer is supposed to fill give you a list of potential characteristics and even some testable ideas about the characteristics of that designer (always assuming that you are serious that there's no religious motivation behind this and that it's not all God-of-the-Gaps). It would be positively bizarre for a scientist to come to the conclusion that the biological world was designed, and then to retire from the field. If true, it's such a fantastic idea, that any scientist worth his salt would be thinking of any possible way to look for evidence that would constrain the characteristics of the designer.
<snip>

[Burkhard]

Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/18/21 7:47 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory
>>> or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>>> scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>>> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>>> thrown into file 13.
>>
>> so you claim - but whenever we got into detail with this, it became
>> clear you simply misunderstood/misrepresented the nature of this
>> allegedly counter evidence
>>
>>  Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
> Both are observed and are real. This is more than one can say about
> finely graduated transitional forms which are required for both rapid
> and slow evolutionary change.

"Stasis" is not any more observed than its counterpart, both are
inferred from the record. And to the extend that the best inference
supports that some species don't change much over long periods of time,
it is perfectly consistent with Darwin.

"Living fossils" are observed in the sense that the outward appearance
of some organisms change little over a long time - which says nothing
about all the other important changes that can happen (changes to immune
system, digestive system, brain etc etc and even if they remained more
generally changed are not inconsistent wit Darwin

There are observed gradual sequences such as the horse sequence, and
from what we observe about the way n which organisms fossilize etc, we
should not really expect many of them to be found. There are currently
around 900 million dogs on this planet. That means the number of dogs
that died this year also goes into the millions. How many of these do
you think fossilized? Of those that do, how many do you think will still
be intact in say 50000 years from now, and not destroyed by earthquakes,
erosion, landslides etc etc? Of those that are left, how great do you
think are the chances someone in 50.000 will be at the right time and
right place to find one? Do you think that what people will get, in
50.000 years time, fro the dog population now, will allow them to
reconstruct the gradual range form Great Dane to Chihuahua?

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:48:18 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 1/18/21 11:32 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 21:03:40 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
>>> searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>>> scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>>> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>>> thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
>>> catagotry.
>>
>> Incorrect. As I and many others have pointed out to you many times
>> over many years, neither "stasis" nor "living fossils" are ignored,
>> overlooked, or thrown out, nor are they evidence contrary to
>> evolution.
>
>Of course you would say that,

Of course *you* would say that. Cynicism cuts both ways. Your
baseless allusion turns your complaints about others questioning your
motives into self-serving whines.

> but for almost a century "stasis" was
>observed, but when searching for evidence supporting evolution "stasis"
>was generally ignored or seen as "no evidence".

Incorrect. It was and is accepted as evidence of a necessarily and
recognizably incomplete fossil record.

> Evolution theory is so
>elastic that it can be expanded to accommodate virtually any discovery.

And now you add pointless hyperbole to your baseless cynicism. You
quack like a Creationist Crocoduck.

>Case in point: evolution is about change, stasis is the opposite of
>change.

G&E's stasis asserts the *irregularity* of change. It does not *deny*
change. Perhaps you refer to a different stasis, one of your own
imagination.

>You cannot argue rationally that change and changeless are the
>same,  they are opposites! The only human endeavor in which this is
>accepted is where evolution is concerned.

It's remarkable that you think your comments above are rational.

>If stasis supported evolution, it would not have been seen as "no
>evidence" until G & E.

Even G&E said stasis was an additional evolutionary mode, not a
rejection of ToE. Why don't you believe them? Do you think they
"would say that" too? Your cynicism impeaches your own witnesses.

>Indeed, regardless of how rapid or how slow
>evolutionary change occurs, there should be numerous finely graded
>transitional forms. Now stasis has bee observed and is real. These 
>numerous finely grade series of fossil forms are still missing.

Do you mean like this:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans>

or like this:

<https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_05>


or like this:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution>


Or are you like those Creationists who, whenever a transitional form
is identified, they proclaim there are now twice as many gaps?

My impression is, no matter how many transitional forms are found, no
matter how finely graded they are, there's never enough, they are
never fine enough, for those who refuse to accept reality.

>The ones
>that are presumed to be transitional have little or no linkage to other
>presumed transitional fossils. The living fossils are observed and are
>real and they are virtually the same as ancient forms with little or no
>physical change from their ancient predecessors

For someone who gets his panties in a bunch whenever he reads
"Creationist", you comments read like they come from right out of
their playbook. You insist the fossil record accurately records
punctuated equilibrium, and then you deny the fossil record accurately
records transitional forms. Your cynicism impeaches your own
evidence.

>> At best, they are evidence against your strawman version
>> of evolution. Your comments above are just one of your many
>> Creationist PRATTs you like to spam.
>I'm surprised at you, Jill, why are you engaging in these personal
>insults against me? >Is it reassuring and comforting to you? I expect
>this from Ron O, but not you!

Have some more cheese with your whine. And read again what I mean by
"Creationist PRATT".

>>> And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin, he
>>> recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
>>> centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
>>> "stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals seeking
>>> to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.
>>>
>>> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>>> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to test
>>> the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat compairing
>>> the results with observation and finally come to a conclusion.
>>>
>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>>
>> You conflate "hypothesis" and "theory". Hypotheses are tentative
>> explanations. Scientific theories are tested explanations. There's a
>> difference. This doesn't mean theories explain everything. It does
>> mean theories explain a large set of observations better than
>> competing explanations.
>A theory is after testing etc and conformation. A hypothesis is the
>potential explanation that is tested. A hypothesis is more likely to be
>cast aside than a theory. IOW a theory carries more weight than a
>hypothesis.

I suppose that's the best you can do.

>> With that in mind, apply the scientific method to your hypothesis,
>> that purposeful design is the best explanation for X, where X is any
>> of the natural phenomena you spam. Explain how your hypothesis better
>> explains X than unguided natural processes. And by "better explains",
>> I don't mean "it feels better to me".
>>
>Science has been placed in a small narrow box, called naturalism, It
>cannot look outside the box for answers. This is a comparatively resent
>development.

Even if naturalism is a small, narrow box, it is multiple orders of
magnitudes larger than the supernaturalism on which your Designer
depends.

[Ron Dean]

On 1/18/21 3:36 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 1:50:34 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 1/18/21 7:37 AM, RonO wrote:
> <big snip to get to a couple of points>
>> Vertually everything you said about me is a damn lie a deliberate
>> misrepresentation.
> So why on earth do you keep engaging with Ron O? You know he'll insult you. Is it easier to respond to insults than to arguments?
>
> <snip>
>>> Why keep lying, what is your intelligent designer?
>> As I've stated previously, I know of no evidence pointing to the
>> identity of the designer. But since there is design in nature a designer
>> is inferred.
> You cannot get away from the question that easily. You invoke a designer to explain certain things that you think cannot be explained by current science. The specific things you need the Designer to account for, automatically create a set of criteria your designer must fulfill.
>
> For example, you wan the designer to explain the origin of life. If you've already concluded that no natural explanation for the origin of life is possible, then you are already postulating a supernatural designer. If you don't know whether a natural explanation (including design by a natural designer) is possible but consider a natural designer possible, then you are arguing that that natural designer must have been present on earth when life on earth originated. That's a specific attribute you are attributing to the designer.

 At some point in the past 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on
planet earth. Life exist on earth, this is an observable and established
fact. Since, no one has demonstrated that life did or could have come
about through natural processes, there is no justification for
discounting a designer. As far as evidence, the existence of life itself
can serve as empirical evidence since life is an _effect_ they had to
have been a cause. The integrated complexity of a living cell and it's
capability of reproduction is unique. No human designed machine is
capable of reproducing itself. This requires information, translation,
copying and building machinery. We as engineers and builders of
machinery, are not there yet. This reminds me of a book I once read, no
analogy and no purpose. Just thought you might be interested.

Several years ago, I read a sci-fi book that stayed with me. This rocket
shop land on a planet, the crew investigates the planet and find no
living thing, But there is a buss like transportation mechanism which
passes by, stops doors open, no one or nothing get on, door closes buss
moves on. The crew follows a truck to a mine where robots are removing
raw goods loading it on another truck going towards an automated
manufacturing plant which was manufacturing other machines........ The
crew then moves to a "house" go inside and observe machines bringing
prepared food, setting it on a table. Minutes later other machinery
removes and trashes the food, places utensils on a shelf: other machines
gather these items. And much more. The crew decides that whoever or what
ever set up everything to care for the inhabitants, their needs and
leaving them with no duties, purpose, responsibilities or anything to
do. But disease had completely decimated all life on the planet
entirely, but what remained was the complex machinery simply running
endlessly serving nothing or no one.

> Now you also say that natural selection cannot account for the appearance of new species or for the fossil record in general, which according to your understanding of what evolution predicts, fails to show gradual transitions. So if your designer is to account for the appearance of new species at many points separated by many millions of years, you are automatically positing a designer that acted on the earth many times, millions of times, indeed, over the course of a few billion years. That's a specific claim. Unless the designer is extremely good at covering his tracks, you might expect to find evidence of at least its more recent visits.
>
> So, automatically the gaps in knowledge that the designer is supposed to fill give you a list of potential characteristics and even some testable ideas about the characteristics of that designer (always assuming that you are serious that there's no religious motivation behind this and that it's not all God-of-the-Gaps). It would be positively bizarre for a scientist to come to the conclusion that the biological world was designed, and then to retire from the field. If true, it's such a fantastic idea, that any scientist worth his salt would be thinking of any possible way to look for evidence that would constrain the characteristics of the designer.
> <snip>
>

Ok, but this is not a fair representative of my position.


--
talk origins

[Glenn]

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 3:05:34 PM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
> Ron Dean wrote:
> > On 1/18/21 7:47 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> >> Ron Dean wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory
> >>> or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
> >>> scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
> >>> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
> >>> thrown into file 13.
> >>
> >> so you claim - but whenever we got into detail with this, it became
> >> clear you simply misunderstood/misrepresented the nature of this
> >> allegedly counter evidence
> >>
> >> Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
> > Both are observed and are real. This is more than one can say about
> > finely graduated transitional forms which are required for both rapid
> > and slow evolutionary change.

> "Stasis" is not any more observed than its counterpart, both are
> inferred from the record. And to the extend that the best inference
> supports that some species don't change much over long periods of time,
> it is perfectly consistent with Darwin.

Still reinventing Darwin, are you? Look, if you insist on these claims, nothing in evolutionary theory is observed. Nothing any more observed than anything else, all inferred from the record.
To get real, at the most basic level, everything is inferred, since it comes from what you consider evolved animal minds. But fossils can be observed, and we can be more convinced of comparisons of simple obvious things, such as what doesn't appear to change over time. Criticisms and assumptions more associated with what we consider inferences comes with guessing about internal changes that are not observable. There are more examples of course. But what Ron said above is not worthy of the criticism you bestow upon him.
And if you wish to maintain an air of respectability, you need to support such claims as you make about stasis being perfectly consistent with Darwin.

>
> "Living fossils" are observed in the sense that the outward appearance
> of some organisms change little over a long time - which says nothing
> about all the other important changes that can happen (changes to immune
> system, digestive system, brain etc etc and even if they remained more
> generally changed are not inconsistent wit Darwin

Emphasizing what can not be observed may be your idea of inference, but not mine. But minor changes over long periods of evolutionary time not making more noticeable changes actually defines stasis and living fossils.

>
> There are observed gradual sequences such as the horse sequence, and
> from what we observe about the way n which organisms fossilize etc, we
> should not really expect many of them to be found.

Now you appeal to "observation", when you should realize that speculating about how obvious observable differences in fossils are related to other fossils. Why don't you criticize yourself for not emphasizing what you called "observed gradual" changes as inferences, not observations??

>There are currently
> around 900 million dogs on this planet. That means the number of dogs
> that died this year also goes into the millions. How many of these do
> you think fossilized? Of those that do, how many do you think will still
> be intact in say 50000 years from now, and not destroyed by earthquakes,
> erosion, landslides etc etc? Of those that are left, how great do you
> think are the chances someone in 50.000 will be at the right time and
> right place to find one? Do you think that what people will get, in
> 50.000 years time, fro the dog population now, will allow them to
> reconstruct the gradual range form Great Dane to Chihuahua?

I don't know, and I'm still puzzling over how you think we have "observe[d] about the way in which organisms fossilize."

You sure blow a hot balloon, but can you tap dance while chewing gum?

[broger...@gmail.com]

Nothing that you wrote here challenges anything I wrote in the paragraph you are responding to. If you posit a designer to explain the origin of life, then the designer was present on earth when life originated, several billion years ago. Everything you offer as evidence for a designer, "ie science cannot explain X," puts constraints on when, and how often, the designer was present and active. So it's no good just waving away all questions about the designer - each piece of evidence that, as you see it, points to a designer, also tells you something about the hypothetical designer's attributes and activities.

>
> Several years ago, I read a sci-fi book that stayed with me. This rocket
> shop land on a planet, the crew investigates the planet and find no
> living thing, But there is a buss like transportation mechanism which
> passes by, stops doors open, no one or nothing get on, door closes buss
> moves on. The crew follows a truck to a mine where robots are removing
> raw goods loading it on another truck going towards an automated
> manufacturing plant which was manufacturing other machines........ The
> crew then moves to a "house" go inside and observe machines bringing
> prepared food, setting it on a table. Minutes later other machinery
> removes and trashes the food, places utensils on a shelf: other machines
> gather these items. And much more. The crew decides that whoever or what
> ever set up everything to care for the inhabitants, their needs and
> leaving them with no duties, purpose, responsibilities or anything to
> do. But disease had completely decimated all life on the planet
> entirely, but what remained was the complex machinery simply running
> endlessly serving nothing or no one.
> > Now you also say that natural selection cannot account for the appearance of new species or for the fossil record in general, which according to your understanding of what evolution predicts, fails to show gradual transitions. So if your designer is to account for the appearance of new species at many points separated by many millions of years, you are automatically positing a designer that acted on the earth many times, millions of times, indeed, over the course of a few billion years. That's a specific claim. Unless the designer is extremely good at covering his tracks, you might expect to find evidence of at least its more recent visits.
> >
> > So, automatically the gaps in knowledge that the designer is supposed to fill give you a list of potential characteristics and even some testable ideas about the characteristics of that designer (always assuming that you are serious that there's no religious motivation behind this and that it's not all God-of-the-Gaps). It would be positively bizarre for a scientist to come to the conclusion that the biological world was designed, and then to retire from the field. If true, it's such a fantastic idea, that any scientist worth his salt would be thinking of any possible way to look for evidence that would constrain the characteristics of the designer.
> > <snip>
> >
> Ok, but this is not a fair representative of my position.

Nonetheless, your position implies some attributes of the Designer that you invoke to explain the things you think cannot be explained by known natural causes. Anyone approaching the question from a scientific point of view would make those hypothetical attributes explicit and look to see what evidence could be found to support or refute them. If you simply wave away all questions about the designer, then it becomes obvious that it's not really about science for you.
>
>
> --
> talk origins

[Glenn]

Will you now argue that Ron believes that the designer also wore designer jeans?

[Mark Isaak]

Since no one has demonstrated that life did or could have come about
through a designer, there is no justification for discounting natural
processes.

(And there are other reasons for discounting a designer, but you don't
want to know about those.)

> As far as evidence, the existence of life itself
> can serve as empirical evidence since life is an _effect_ they had to
> have been a cause. The integrated complexity of a living cell and it's
> capability of reproduction is unique. No human designed machine is
> capable of reproducing itself. This requires information, translation,
> copying and building machinery. We as engineers and builders of
> machinery, are not there yet.

In other words, life looks designed because it does NOT look like the
only sort of design we are familiar with.

[Oxyaena]

On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>
> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
> searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
> scientific methodology?

Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.

> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
> thrown into file 13.

Such as?

> Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
> catagotry.

The term "living fossil" is a misnomer, in reality they have evolved
just like anything else, these taxa have merely just found niches that
are remarkably stable.

[snip idiocy]

[Glenn]

Stable niches, eh. Kinda like tiny bubbles in the wine. The idea makes you happy. Makes you feel fine.

[DB Cates]

re: the Chihuahua to Great Dane gradual range.
Why wait 50000 years? Could we do it now?

>
>
>
>
>>>> catagotry. And although, his critics pointed this out to Darwin, he
>>>> recognized the fact, but greatly preferred gradualism and over a
>>>> centrury, until the Late S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of
>>>> "stasis" was observed not reported, and ignored by professionals
>>>> seeking to "prove" gradual evolutionary change.
>>>
>>> Only that they don't. Stasis has been reported, and is not
>>> contradicting Darwin, merely a result of stable environments where
>>> fewer changes are likely to be beneficial. You keep misrepresenting
>>> what "gradualism" meant in Darwin, despite having been given direct
>>> cites form the text. And you keep misrepresenting Gould. There is no
>>> conflict between Gould and Darwin, only between your misunderstood
>>> version of both.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>>>> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to
>>>> test the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat
>>>> compairing the results with observation and finally come to a
>>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>> Which is what is done - just tat you reject arbitrarily (some)
>>> results of these tests because they don't fir your preconceptions. In
>>> particular you reject the observations we can make about rate of
>>> fossilization, bias in the preservation of fossils and all the other
>>> observations that form the cornerstone of taphonomy as "excuse making"
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Bill]

For some, maybe most, Science has become an ideology and, like all other
ideologies, requires conformance. Science is no longer just the study of
nature, it has become the means by which everything is judged, the Grand
Arbiter of Truth. Nature is not the issue but rather all behavior, attitude
and ideas of the underlying ideologies.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Good point. We know the intermediaries between wolves and dogs, and the
gradual changes that lead to among others Chihuahuas. OK, artificial
selection sped up the process, but that should make it even easier, as
we should find the fossils closer together.

If the world worked the way Dean thinks it does, we should be able to
document dog evolution with lots of transitionals from the fossil record
- and I'm pretty certain we can't

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 12:10:34 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 7:00:34 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> >
> >> > When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
> >> > searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
> >> > scientific methodology?
> >> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.
> >> > What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
> >> > that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
> >> > thrown into file 13.
> >> Such as?
> >> > Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
> >> > catagotry.
> >> The term "living fossil" is a misnomer, in reality they have evolved
> >> just like anything else, these taxa have merely just found niches that
> >> are remarkably stable.
> >>
> >> [snip idiocy]
> >
> > Stable niches, eh. Kinda like tiny bubbles in the wine. The idea makes you
> > happy. Makes you feel fine.

...................................
> For some, maybe most,

So if such people are so common, there should be a few on T.O. whose posts you could point to as supporting evidence for the broad generalizations below.

[Oxyaena]

On 1/19/2021 12:24 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 12:10:34 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 7:00:34 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
>>>>> searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>>>>> scientific methodology?
>>>> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.
>>>>> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>>>>> that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>>>>> thrown into file 13.
>>>> Such as?
>>>>> Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
>>>>> catagotry.
>>>> The term "living fossil" is a misnomer, in reality they have evolved
>>>> just like anything else, these taxa have merely just found niches that
>>>> are remarkably stable.
>>>>
>>>> [snip idiocy]
>>>
>>> Stable niches, eh. Kinda like tiny bubbles in the wine. The idea makes you
>>> happy. Makes you feel fine.
> ...................................
>> For some, maybe most,
>
> So if such people are so common, there should be a few on T.O. whose posts you could point to as supporting evidence for the broad generalizations below.
>

How about a coin toss to determine whether he does so? Heads for "no,"
and tails for also "no." It's a 50/50 chance of him doing jack shit or
him doing jack shit.

[Bill]

This newsgroup is an excellent example. The science being discussed is some
variation of the ToE, the alternatives are discussions skeptical of the
claims made for science. The former includes most of the posters here, the
later are those who are less sanguine about the former's claims.

There have been discussions giving the impression that the pro-ToE factions
have all the facts in their favor. It may be that it's the arrogance of
these claims that provoke replies or it may that there are legitimate
objections that are dismissed as Creationist or ID and of no value. The end
result is that both sides are offended and nothing ever gets settled.

Bill

[jillery]

"newsgroup" is not a "people". Just sayin'.

>The science being discussed is some
>variation of the ToE, the alternatives are discussions skeptical of the
>claims made for science. The former includes most of the posters here, the
>later are those who are less sanguine about the former's claims.
>
>There have been discussions giving the impression that the pro-ToE factions
>have all the facts in their favor. It may be that it's the arrogance of
>these claims that provoke replies or it may that there are legitimate
>objections that are dismissed as Creationist or ID and of no value. The end
>result is that both sides are offended and nothing ever gets settled.
>
>Bill

I acknowledge that posting your baseless allusions above are much
easier than actually backing up your claims, and do just as well to
preach to the choir.

[broger...@gmail.com]

And yet, you still offer no specific example of the sort of posts you are talking about. If they are as common as you say, it should be trivially easy to cite a couple of them.

[Bill]

If you haven't been posting to this newsgroup then your ignorance of posting
trends is understandable. You will have to rely on what others say about
what's been said which means you have to also trust what they say. You are
using the popular technique of demanding cites for everything said rather
than actually responding with something on point.

Bill

[Glenn]

> And yet, you still offer no specific example of the sort of posts you are talking about. If they are as common as you say, it should be trivially easy to cite a couple of them.

Well, as to the attitude of having 'all the facts in their favor' along with arrogance and dismissal of skeptical claims, I give you at least three recently posting in this very thread. You, jillery and Oxy. I need not cite them, you can read their posts yourself.

[Glenn]

Support your contention that identifying specific cites should be trivial. I suspect that you would never accept any examples as evidence of Bill's claims, no matter how specific, and you would argue or could argue till the cows came home that Bill's claims are not valid.

[Ron Dean]

On 1/19/21 8:57 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>
>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory
>> or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>> scientific methodology?
>
> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.

Not when in searching only for confirming evidence and when contrary or
falsifying evidence is found ignoring it of seeing it as "no
information". (adapting Gould's words to this scenario)

>
>> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact that evidence that
>> falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else thrown into file 13.
>
> Such as?

Stasis observed in the strata for a century until Stephen J. Gould and
Niles Eldredge brought it forward.

>
>> Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this catagotry.
>
> The term "living fossil" is a misnomer, in reality they have evolved
> just like anything else, these taxa have merely just found niches that
> are remarkably stable.

At the same time other critters in the same period of time and the same
remarkably stable environment did undergo "evolutionary change"? One of
the remarkable characteristics of evolution is that it is so elastic
that can be stretched to fit over anything, regardless of how contrary:
and so, a person can have it both ways
>
> [snip idiocy]
>

--
talk origins

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'm telling you that since I have been following this newsgroup for a long time I find your generalizations about what "almost everybody" thinks to be very wide of the mark, and am asking you to back up your claims with evidence. If that's too much work for you, then I'll take your generalizations for all that their worth.

[Ron Dean]

For many people science, especially evolution has replaced
fundamentalist religion and in a very real since has become a "new
religion" with adherents having the same dedication, devotion, defensive
posturing, trust and faith as any fundamentalist religious sect!
> Bill
>

--
talk origins

[Glenn]

And I imagine that Bill will take what you claim you "find" for all you're worth.

[jillery]

Once again, the "skeptics" refuse to back up their claims, and instead
assert baseless allusions and outright lies. Even though nobody has
neither implied nor stated they "have all the facts", the facts the
"pro-ToE" provide must appear as an insurmountable mountain to the
"skeptics".

[Glenn]

> >>> This newsgroup is an excellent example. The science being discussed is
> >>> some variation of the ToE, the alternatives are discussions skeptical of
> >>> the claims made for science. The former includes most of the posters
> >>> here, the later are those who are less sanguine about the former's
> >>> claims.
> >>>
> >>> There have been discussions giving the impression that the pro-ToE
> >>> factions have all the facts in their favor. It may be that it's the
> >>> arrogance of these claims that provoke replies or it may that there are
> >>> legitimate objections that are dismissed as Creationist or ID and of no
> >>> value. The end result is that both sides are offended and nothing ever
> >>> gets settled.
> >>>

> >> And yet, you still offer no specific example of the sort of posts you are
> >> talking about. If they are as common as you say, it should be trivially
> >> easy to cite a couple of them.
> >
> >If you haven't been posting to this newsgroup then your ignorance of posting
> >trends is understandable. You will have to rely on what others say about
> >what's been said which means you have to also trust what they say. You are
> >using the popular technique of demanding cites for everything said rather
> >than actually responding with something on point.
> >

> Once again, the "skeptics" refuse to back up their claims, and instead
> assert baseless allusions and outright lies. Even though nobody has
> neither implied nor stated they "have all the facts",

You just did.

Followed by arrogance:

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:27 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>You just did.


Thank you for once again proving my point for me.

[RonO]

On 1/18/2021 1:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/18/21 7:37 AM, RonO wrote:

>> On 1/18/2021 12:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 1/17/21 9:35 PM, RonO wrote:

>>>> On 1/17/2021 8:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's
>>>>> theory or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this

>>>>> legitimate scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific

>>>>> is the fact that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored,

>>>>> overlooked or else thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living
>>>>> fossils" falls into this catagotry. And although, his critics

>>>>> pointed this out to Darwin, he recognized the fact, but greatly
>>>>> preferred gradualism and over a centrury, until the Late S. J.
>>>>> Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of "stasis" was observed not
>>>>> reported, and ignored by professionals seeking to "prove" gradual
>>>>> evolutionary change.
>>>>>

>>>>> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>>>>> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to
>>>>> test the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat
>>>>> compairing the results with observation and finally come to a
>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>

>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't know how science works.
>>> I gave the source: britannica.
>>
>> You don't know how science works.  The reason that you do not know is
>> willful ignorance.  Britannica is likely not that bad, you just remain
>> ignorant of many of the the things that they told you.
>>

What you should do is reread our exchange to this point in this thread.
What you should understand is that you are admitting to everything
that I have stated. You seem to understand that it is the truth and
what the situation is at this time, but you are stuck in some type of
terminal denial that you can't get out of.

The ID scam started off with the claim that they could do the ID
science. They lied about being creationists in the same way that you
are lying about it. Their claim that just because they do not designate
who their designer is, that lets them off the hook in terms of being
Biblical creationists. Name an ID perp that is not a Biblical
creationists that still supports the ID scam at the Discovery Institute.
Berlinski still claims to be an agnostic, but he also claimed that he
never bought into the ID creationist scam. Denton, admitted that he
might be a backsliding Christian, but he isn't sure that he has backslid
enough to be a backsliding Christian. The ID perp that was interviewing
him even claimed that Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye making the
admissions that he did. Denton has also claimed that his intelligent
designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded, so
he isn't an agnostic. He may be agnostic about other beliefs in some
god, but not his own.

Your claim not to be interested in who your designer is, is just as
empty and dishonest as the claims of the ID perps. You know this because
you admit that you aren't interested in learning anything from the ID
science like their Big Bang denial. Really, you use the Big Bang just
like the ID perp use it. They only use it as a god-of-the-gaps denial
argument, and they also do not want to understand what the Big Bang
tells them about what their creator did. Like you, they are only in it
for the denial, and most of them don't even want to believe in the
designer that fits in that gap. You know this is true because the Big
Bang is one of the science topics that the IDiots have tried to remove
from the public school science standards. IDiots do not want their kids
to learn anything about the creation that the Big Bang is part of.

> False accusation: not that it matters to you!
>
> Who is they? Unlike you I read both sides.

They would be Britannica. My guess is that they did not leave out what
I put below and you ran from. You can't demonstrate that my statement
was false by just claiming that it is false. Why try to lie about
something this stupid. Science just is not the way that you claim. On
some level you know because you just ran from what I wrote below without
comment. It shows up as something that you wrote, but that is likely
due to your news reader when you split off what you could not deal with.
Really, why did you run from what is written directly below.

>
> One of the most impressive things that any scientists could ever do is
> to demonstrate that the previous generation was wrong about something,
> and that they have a better option and can demonstrate it.  Just because
> all creationism has been is denial in the form of scientific creationism
> and intelligent design creationism, obviously, does not make science
> work that way.  Science works and creationism never could do the science
> that was claimed possible. Both IDiocy and scientific creationism
> claimed that they could do the same science everyone else was doing, but
> they lied.
>
>>> Have you ever read anything by Michael Denton or Behe or anyone else
>>> of intelligent design point of view. I doubt it. If not you get your
>>> information from biases sources.
>>
>> Yes,  Have you? Really, use the Top Six in an honest and
>> straightforward manner to build something instead of wallow in denial.
>> If you do not come up with an alternative similar to what Behe and
>> Denton have told you exists, you did it wrong and should ask for help.
>>
> What am I denying: why do I need an alternative?

You are so far into denial that you don't even know that putting your
creator into the Big Bang gap is an alternative. What you should be
doing if you were doing something honest and straightforward is to learn
something about that alternative. You should be able to use the Big
Bang and the other Top Six that you have put up one at a time to build
your best creationist alternative. The reason that you do not do that
is because denial is all you are an IDiot for. You are admitting that
you are lying about being able to deal with the science.

What an IDiot. What is the purpose of science? If you are claiming to
have those reasons for your denial arguments what should you be doing
with your denial arguments instead of wallowing in denial? You claim
that the Big Bang is evidence for the existence of your intelligent
designer god, so put your god as being responsible for the Big Bang and
determine what that tells you about your creator god. The reason that
no IDiot posting to TO can do that for the Top Six is because they do
not want to believe in the creator god that is responsible for the Top
Six gaps. MarkE does not want to believe in the god that fits in his
origin of life gap (#3). The reason why the Top Six is not used for
scientific purposes by the IDiots is because they do not want to do or
understand the science. They do not want to understand what the
creation is that god-of-the-gaps creator is responsible for. You admit
that you do not want to do this below. So you know that it is true.

Lying to yourself about only being in this for denial purposes is stupid
when you claim to not understand why you should be working on what your
creator did in the creation. Just think for a few seconds on what your
Big Bang denial is based on. You want to support the existence of your
creator, so you find a gap that allows for the existence of such a
creator. Such a creator could fill that gap and be responsible for that
event. You are claiming that your creator could be responsible for
creating the Big Bang because we don't know what happened in the gap.
If this is not true than you are really lost and confused. How do you
think your denial arguments have worked for creationists for more than
half a century. The Scientific Creationists used the Big Bang. It is
still put up in the AIG creation museum for denial purposes as you are
using it for, but the same IDiots want to drop the Big Bang out of their
state science standards because they do not want their kids to
understand the Big Bang. They do not want to believe in the god that
created the Big Bang 13 billion years ago.

If you were really interested in the science instead of the denial you
would be trying to learn something about the creation. That is what
science does. If you consider nature to be the creation, science is
only the attempt to understand what nature is. You claim to be in
IDiocy for the science, but what are you really supporting the denial
argument for?

>>>>
>>>> Look at your use of the Big Bang (#1 of the ID perp's Top Six), but
>>>> #6 in the list that was ordered by their importance to IDiocy by
>>>> Sewell. There is no interest in doing any science pertaining to the
>>>> Big Bang by IDiots like yourself that have to lie about being
>>>> creationists.
>>> Creatiionist are Genesis based. I never appeal to Genesis.
>>> Furthermore, creationist believe in a six 24 hour creation.  A
>>> literaal Adam and Eve and talking snakes and the fall from the Garden
>>> of Edin. I reject this. Creationist believe in a Universal flood: I
>>> do not. Creationist believe that the God of the Bible is the creator.
>>> I never discuss religion, or the Bible or God, I observe evidence of
>>> design, and design implies a designer, but nothing about design
>>> identifies the designer.. Neither do I know of any evidence pointing
>>> to the identity of the designer. Nor is the identity of the designer
>>> important.
>>
>> No creationists are not just Genesis based.  The ID perps profess to
>> run a "Big Tent" creationist operation.  All religions are welcome
>> that want to participate.  They even call it their Bit Tent strategy.
>> The type of creationists that can still lie to themselves about the
>> intelligent design creationists scam can be any type of creationist.
>> You have Kalkidas as an obvious example for how long on TO.  You do
>> not see Hindu ID perps at the Discovery Institute only due to the fact
>> that the ID perps are religious bigots and do not want to support any
>> other religion but their own.  Really the guys that ran the Wedge
>> strategy and wanted to teach their brand of creationism in the public
>> schools did not have to change the name of what they were doing.  The
>> Supreme court had already told them that they could teach creation
>> science in a comparative religion class, but the ID perps did not want
>> to let their kids know about other religions.  The Top Six were all
>> used by the creation science ploy.  There turned out to be no
>> difference between intelligent design creationism and scientific
>> creationism in terms of the creation science.
>>
>> Hiding and lying about their religious beliefs is a major part of the
>> ID scam.  The whole point of the name change was to try to fool the
>> courts that would have to hear the cases.  They did not fool the court
>> in the only example of the failure of their bait and switch scam.
>>
>> You aren't fooling anyone either.  At least, no one but yourself.
>> Really, most competent and half way honest IDiots already went back to
>> being plain old religious creationists after Dover.  The ID Network of
>> academics quit and went home.  The IDiot science organization (ISCID)
>> died when most everyone quit except the ID perps making a living off
>> the scam.  There never was any ID science, so there is no longer a
>> reason to lie about the situation any longer.  Phillip Johnson quit
>> the ID scam after the IDiot federal court loss and admitted that the
>> ID science had never existed, and that it was up to the ID perps
>> claiming that some science could be done to produce such science.
>> Johnson was the guy that the other ID perps claimed got the scam
>> rolling, he developed their Wedge strategy, and he never retracted his
>> admission nor supported the ID scam after it in public.  He made that
>> admission 14 years ago, so why are you still an IDiot stupid enough to
>> use the IDiot scam junk?

> Everything I advocate is the result of my own research and study. As far
> as I'm concerned the strongest evidence points to design. I'm in
> reference to: 1) the origin or life from dead matter. the origin of the
> DNA Code and living cells with the ability to reproduce. 2) the origin
> of the DNA edit and repair machinery. 3) The origin of the homeobox
> genes (IE Universal Master Control Genes) 4) the real story of life as
> revealed in the fossil record: abrupt appearance of new forms without
> known precursors, the virtual universal existence of "stasis" as typical
> of the fossil record rather than finely graduated gradual transitional
> fossils. 5) biology's big bang of the Cambrian and the apparent of most
> phylum.

If that is true deal with the science instead of use it for denial. The
origin of life occurred around 9 billion years after the Big Bang. The
earth was much different and lifeforms had to exist in that environment.
The origin of DNA as the genetic material likely came after the
initial self replicating units had come into being. It could be that
RNA was the first such genetic material and DNA came later. Really, DNA
is not required for the genetic code to have evolved. Life was stuck at
the single cell level for around 3 billion years. Eukaryotes did evolve
in that time, but they remained single celled for likely over a billion
years. During the single cell stage the homeobox genes evolved as the
regulators of transcription with the HOX motif. Several types of HOX
genes evolved by gene duplication over millions of years. The multiple
Homeobox genes that you put up are obviously due to gene duplication of
that type of HOX gene. In MarkE's new gene denial paper they list
multiple new gene families that evolved from the HOX genes before the
Cambrian explosion, HOX genes existed before multicellular animals, and
more such gene families evolved from HOX genes before the radiation of
multicellular animals before, during and after the Cambrian explosion.

Most phyla of multicellular animals appeared in the fossil record during
the Cambrian explosion.

An older but informative paper:
https://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4426

MarkE's new gene denial paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04136-5

MarkE put up this ID perp denial about too many new genes. The above
link is to the actual paper. Once MarkE figured out what the evolution
of new genes told him about the creation he ran. Really, the Cambrian
explosion occurred in the black triangles to the far right of Figure 1.
The new genes talked about in this paper evolved over hundreds of
millions of years The pink area is the evolution of metazoa
(multicellular animals). The phylogeny is not to scale the spacing is
set to conform to the gene number boxes and not actual lengths of time.
The separation of plants and animals likely happened over a billion
years ago (the far left node) and the Cambrian explosion half a billion
years ago. Table 1 tells you that three families of important
regulatory genes evolved from the Homeobox genes long before the
Cambrian explosion. This paper tells you how much evolution had gone on
before the rapid radiation of multicellular animals could occur. MarkE
could not deal with reality and ran even though it was his and the ID
perp's denial argument. He did not want to believe in the creator that
was responsible for the new genes.

>>
>>>> The reason that there is no interest in doing any science is because
>>>> you really do not want to understand that aspect of nature.  You
>>>> only use the Big Bang for denial purposes.  If this were not true
>>>> you would have been able to use the Top Six to build your best IDiot
>>>> alternative based on the science that you can do around each
>>>> god-of-the-gaps arguments.
>>> Denial of the Big Bang. I do not! I have not need to build any
>>> alternatives to the big bang. Every argument I offered are predicated
>>> on evidence from science. Not god-of the-gaps!
>>
>> What a willfully ignorant boob.  You do not have to build an
>> alternative to the Big Bang.  You just have to learn something from
>> the legitimate science and build your IDiot alternative using that
>> science.  Denial isn't building anything.  13 billion years ago your
>> god was responsible for creating the Big Bang.  What do we know
>> happened after that?  8 billion years later your god fine tuned our
>> solar system using materials that it took 8 billion years worth of
>> star deaths to create.  Build your best alternative with the Top Six
>> and see why no other IDiot has ever helped you out when you have asked
>> for assistance with them.  Really, why do you think that Glenn can't
>> even acknowledge that they exist?  Why do you think that Sewell broke
>> up #2 (fine tuning) into two separate events?  He didn't want to face
>> the 8 billion years between those two events and what we have figured
>> out about them.
>>
>> They are only supposed to be used for IDiots to lie to themselves
>> about them one at a time, just like you usually do.  They are not
>> meant to be used to learn anything about nature because in isn't
>> anything that they want to believe.
> You are a wAZDXCZBVSAQzzs6Zziuillofully misrepresenting me.

The Top Six includes the Big Bang and you only use them to lie to
yourself about them one at a time. You admit that you aren't interested
in learning something about nature, and that the only reason you have
for putting them up is denial so that you can claim that your creator
might fit in there somewhere because we don't know everything. You
never try to understand the science that tells you where and what the
gap is because you don't want to believe in such a creator.

Why do you think that Glenn can't even acknowledge that the Top Six
exists? He may have used them multiple times before they were put up as
the Top Six, but when they were put up as the best that the IDiots had
he ran and has kept running, and just satisfies himself by putting up
second rate denial junk that did not make the Top Six list in order to
keep lying to himself about the issue.

You have admitted that all you want out of the Big Bang is the denial.
I have not misrepresented you because you claim that you are not using
the Big Bang to understand nature or learn anything about your creator
and what that creator did.

>>
>>>>
>>>> If IDiots were interested in doing science involving the Big Bang
>>>> why have the IDiot rubes that listen to the ID perps tried to remove
>>>> the Big Bang from their state's science standards.  They succeeded
>>>> in Kansas, and tried in other states like Texas and Oklahoma.  There
>>>> is no interest to understand what the Big Bang is to nature even
>>>> though both the ID perps and the Scientific creationists before them
>>>> used the Big Bang the same way that you just used it on TO.
>>>
>>> You cannot carry on a honest, civil, respectful discussion with
>>> anyone you disagrees with. Here again you slander, verbal attack,
>>> smear and misrepresent. But really that's all you have.
>>
>> You apparently are not competent enough to understand what is being
>> discussed, and do not even know what slander is.
>>
>> What have I stated that is not true?  It may make IDiots like you look
>> bad, but it is only stating the truth.  A reality that you can't deal
>> with except by calling it slander.

>>
> Vertually everything you said about me is a damn lie a deliberate
> misrepresentation.

Just state what I have lied about, and demonstrate that it is a lie.
You can't do that because you admit that what I have claimed is true.
You are only using the Big Bang for denial purposes. You do not even
realize that your alternative is that your creator was responsible for
the Big Bang, and you have no intention of dealing with what the Big
Bang tells you about your creator and what he did with respect to the
other Top Six, many of which you have put up one at a time for denial
purposes.

>>>
>>>
>>> I have nothing to do with whatever goes on in Texas, Oklahoma or
>>> Kansas nor do I support them. I do not advocate ID in public schools.
>>> I accept the evidence that the Big Bang happened, but I have no idea
>>> what caused it to go "bang".
>>
>> You have to deal with how other creationists have dealt with the Big
>> Bang in order to understand why all the other IDiots are running from
>> the Top Six instead of dealing with them in an honest and
>> straightforward manner.  Really, even though the Big Bang still makes
>> the list as one of the top fool the creationist rubes pieces of junk,
>> most IDiots can't stand to know that it happened. They don't want
>> their kids to be taught about it and when it is on the science
>> standards the students are expected to understand what the Big Bang
>> is.  IDiots really do not want their kids to understand the Big Bang.
>> They only use it as a creationist denial argument like you use it.
>>
> You a just a dishonest, false accuser misrepresenting me.

Lying about the situation is just sad. Why not demonstrate that you are
not lying. Pretty tough to do when you know that you are lying.

>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UQNLl8XI5r0/m/QbWRmXfdBwAJ
>>>>
>>>> IDiots don't have to disprove the Top Six.  IDiots just have to deal
>>>> with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner. This is
>>>> something that creationists just cannot do.
>>>>
>>>> Start with the Big Bang. Around 13 billion years ago your god was
>>>> responsible for the Big Bang.
> PROVE THIS! No where and at no time can you find where I made any such
> claim!

Why try to lie about something this stupid. Why do you believe that the
Big Bang is the best evidence for the existence of your intelligent
designer that you keep lying about not being your creator god. You make
the claim that your god was responsible for the Big Bang when you make
the claim that it supports the existence of your designer because he
would be required to be responsible for it instead of just claiming that
we don't know what happened before the Big Bang. You have to be pretty
loopy to not understand how your own denial argument works. Why do you
think that the ID perps list it among their Top Six? How does the Big
Bang support the existence of your intelligent designer creator god?

Willful ignorance of this magnitude is totally bogus dishonesty on your
part.

>>> I've never made this argument! I do_not_ bring god(s) to TO.
>>
>> That is the point, you have never dealt with the Big Bang in an honest
>> and straightforward manner.  You have just used it to lie to yourself
>> for a bit before going on to another of the Top Six to lie to yourself
>> again.  If you were really interested in the science you would be
>> learning something about the Big Bang and using it to build your best
>> creationist alternative.  You should use it to understand what your
>> god did and has done.
>>
> IOW if I'm not using your flawed logic, then I not honestly dealing with
> ID.

No existing IDiot deals with ID honestly except those too ignorant and
incompetent to know better at this time. ID is only a bait and switch
scam that creationists are currently running on themselves. No IDiot
rubes ever get the promised ID science all they ever get is a switch
scam that the ID perps claim has nothing to do with intelligent design.
That has been happening for 19 years because there is no ID science to
deal with in an honest manner.

You can't even honestly deal with your Big Bang denial argument. You
use it just like all the creationists before you, but you keep lying
about how you are using it.

Tell us how you are using the Big Bang god-of-the-gaps denial argument
any differently than the ID perps. You even claim that not identifying
the intelligent designer that is supposed to fill that gap legitimizes
the bogus argument. The ID perps make the same bogus claim.

>>>> We have figured out quite a lot about what happened after the Big
>>>> Bang, so start building your best IDiot alternative from your best
>>>> argument.  #2 is fine tuning.  Your god would have been responsible
>>>> for fine tuning the physical laws before or during the Big Bang, and
>>>> things unfolded after that based on those physical laws.  Another
>>>> round of fine tuning may have been required when our solar system
>>>> formed out of dead star material, stars that formed and died after
>>>> the Big Bang.  It took around 8 billion years for the material that
>>>> our solar system is made of to be created.
>>> Here again, I never bring god(s) to TO. So, why do you continue to
>>> misrepresent me and my positions?

>>
>> Why keep lying, what is your intelligent designer?
> As I've stated previously, I know of no evidence pointing to the
> identity of the designer. But since there is design in nature a designer
> is inferred.

Lying to yourself about what you are doing is stupid at this time
because there is no legitimate inference ever put forward and tested.
No testable IDiot hypotheses have ever been put forward and tested.
Lying about the inference meaning anything at this time is just lying to
yourself. It was a ploy to circumvent the court system. The Supreme
court had ruled that if any creation science was ever produced that it
could be taught in the public schools. What the creationists already
had could be taught in a comparative religion class. The ID perps did
not want to teach their kids about any other religions (why have there
been no Hindu ID perps with fellowships to the ID scam unit in the 25
year history of the ID creationist scam?). The ID perps realized that
they had no creation science to teach, so they changed the name of what
they were doing. Scientific creationism had already made them
understand that there was no creation science that they wanted to do, so
they never attempted to do any intelligent design science. Behe and
Minnich admitted under oath that they both and never attempted to
scientifically test the bogus IDiot junk. They both claimed that it
could be tested, but admitted that they had never done the testing.
Both came up with the same test, and to this day, neither one has done
that testing and it has been 15 years since they made those claims.

No ID science exists for you to support. You are just lying to yourself
about something that it is tragically stupid to lie to yourself about.

>> If you still want to keep lying to yourself, just put in "intelligent
>> designer" where your god would be and build your best intelligent
>> designer scenario using what you can learn about nature.
> If you continue to misrepresent me, I will refuse any further
> commutations with you. Unless you alter you behavior and become more
> civil and honest in your dealings with me, this is good bye!

Lying to yourself about reality will not change reality. Like the Top
Six it will be there again once you forget that you couldn't deal with
it. How many times have you claimed to have forgotten about the Top Six
in the last 3 years? The Big Bang is #1 of the Top Six. The origin of
life is #3 of the Top Six. The Cambrian explosion is #5 of the Top Six.
You use all of them just the same way as the ID perps and scientific
creationist used the same god-of-the-gaps arguments. Denial isn't
anything to aspire to.

>>
>> Lying about the issue is simply lying, and you still don't want to
>> understand anything about nature.  The claim that IDiots were
>> interested in the science was bogus.  The scientific creationists had
>> already demonstrated that creationists did not want to deal with the
>> science. The ID perps had to change the name of what they were doing
>> because they had no creation science that they wanted to do, and they
>> never attempted to do any ID science.  Name a single testable IDiot
>> hypothesis that was ever put forward and tested.  Your claim of being
>> interested in the science should die with that realization and how you
>> can't deal with the Top Six as actual science and learn something
>> about the creation.
>
> Still slanderous wording. ie Idiot, perps

The truth isn't slander in most states. Someone claimed that there were
a couple of states where the truth could be slander, but my guess is
that my use of the truth wouldn't qualify, since it is just stating what
you are lying about as you are lying about it. Why not name a single
testable IDiot hypothesis that was ever put forward and tested? Doesn't
failure of that magnitude make you understand what you are and what you
are doing?

The Top Six are still below. You can run from them, but they will still
exist the next time you put one of them up. Why isn't it an option to
use them to understand something about the creation? Your denial exists
so that you don't have to understand anything. Why not demonstrate that
you are interested in the science and in understanding something about
nature that those bits of science can tell you? IDiot creationists use
them for denial, but the real scientific endeavor uses them to learn
something about the creation.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>>
>>>> Keep going with the other Top Six and figure out why IDiots like
>>>> Glenn, Bill and Nando can't deal with them.  Glenn can't even
>>>> acknowledge that they exist as the IDiot Top Six.  You keep claiming
>>>> that you keep forgetting to have ever dealt with them each time you
>>>> put up something like the Big Bang thread for the last 3 years.  You
>>>> keep putting them up one at a time for your denial purposes, but you
>>>> never deal with the science that has already been done.  Science
>>>> that any alternative that you can think up has to deal with.  MarkE
>>>> spent a lot of time trying to define the gap in #3 (origin of
>>>> life).  It is one that you have put up before also.  MarkE figured
>>>> out that he did not want to believe in the god that fit into the gap
>>>> that he was creating under conditions on earth 3.8 billion years
>>>> ago.  You have never dealt with what is around the gap either.
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>> Don't lie about what I claim about the Top Six again and run away.
>>>> You just come back with the same stupid junk, so you might as well
>>>> deal with it now.  Deal with the existing science and build your
>>>> best IDiot alternative out of the Top Six.  The ID perps have
>>>> already told you that they are in their order of occurrence so that
>>>> should help you out.  If you don't end up with something like Denton
>>>> and Behe have already told you about, you did it wrong and have to
>>>> start over or ask for help.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:07:13 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>...Science has become an ideology...

Is it possible for you to apply your baseball bat to a
different dead equine? That one is getting a bit ripe.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:29:39 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

I'd say that it's "on point" to ask for evidence supporting
your assertions, and a simple "No, I won't" would have saved
you time and effort...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:24:07 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 12:10:34 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 7:00:34 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> >> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory or
>> >> > searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>> >> > scientific methodology?
>> >> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.
>> >> > What makes this non - scinetific is the fact
>> >> > that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else
>> >> > thrown into file 13.
>> >> Such as?
>> >> > Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this
>> >> > catagotry.
>> >> The term "living fossil" is a misnomer, in reality they have evolved
>> >> just like anything else, these taxa have merely just found niches that
>> >> are remarkably stable.
>> >>
>> >> [snip idiocy]
>> >
>> > Stable niches, eh. Kinda like tiny bubbles in the wine. The idea makes you
>> > happy. Makes you feel fine.
>...................................
>> For some, maybe most,
>
>So if such people are so common, there should be a few on T.O. whose posts you could point to as supporting evidence for the broad generalizations below.

But that's the beauty of broad generalizations; they apply
universally, so no exemplars are required.

>>Science has become an ideology and, like all other
>> ideologies, requires conformance. Science is no longer just the study of
>> nature, it has become the means by which everything is judged, the Grand
>> Arbiter of Truth. Nature is not the issue but rather all behavior, attitude
>> and ideas of the underlying ideologies.

[Ron Dean]

On 1/18/21 7:52 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 6:10:34 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 1[snip]

>> is inferred.
>>> You cannot get away from the question that easily. You invoke a designer to explain certain things that you think cannot be explained by current science. The specific things you need the Designer to account for, automatically create a set of criteria your designer must fulfill.
>>>
>>> For example, you wan the designer to explain the origin of life. If you've already concluded that no natural explanation for the origin of life is possible, then you are already postulating a supernatural designer. If you don't know whether a natural explanation (including design by a natural designer) is possible but consider a natural designer possible, then you are arguing that that natural designer must have been present on earth when life on earth originated. That's a specific attribute you are attributing to the designer.
>> At some point in the past 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on
>> planet earth. Life exist on earth, this is an observable and established
>> fact. Since, no one has demonstrated that life did or could have come
>> about through natural processes, there is no justification for

>> discounting a designer. As far as evidence, the existence of life itself

>> can serve as empirical evidence since life is an _effect_ they had to
>> have been a cause. The integrated complexity of a living cell and it's
>> capability of reproduction is unique. No human designed machine is
>> capable of reproducing itself. This requires information, translation,
>> copying and building machinery. We as engineers and builders of

>> machinery, are not there yet. This reminds me of a book I once read, no
>> analogy and no purpose. Just thought you might be interested.
> Nothing that you wrote here challenges anything I wrote in the paragraph you are responding to. If you posit a designer to explain the origin of life, then the designer was present on earth when life originated, several billion years ago. Everything you offer as evidence for a designer, "IE science cannot explain X," puts constraints on when, and how often, the designer was present and active. So it's no good just waving away all questions about the designer - each piece of evidence that, as you see it, points to a designer, also tells you something about the hypothetical designer's attributes and activities.

As I pointed out there is no empirical evidence as to the identity of
the designer. But studying and analyzing it's design, this might provide
certain information regarding the designer. However, only the briefest
outline below noting it's intellect, capacities and abilities are listed:

1) virtually infinitely intelligent with potently endless capacities,
resources and power with 2) engineering capabilities for planning and
programing, setting up automatic systems which role out strategies and
techniques far in advance of needs 3) the formation of an information
coding system (DNA) which is universal, ancient and changeless, which
can automatically be utilized throughout the future encoded in the first
living cells with system for living systems designed with the ability to
reproduce and transfer information to offspring. 4) the development and
programming sophisticated edit and repair machinery for errors and
omissions in coded information 5) the development of a 2nd information
programming system (homeobox genes) far in advance of need containing
the wherewith for various animal body forms of their organs which are
universal, ancient, unchanged throughout history of multicellular life.

>> Several years ago, I read a sci-fi book that stayed with me. This rocket
>> shop land on a planet, the crew investigates the planet and find no
>> living thing, But there is a buss like transportation mechanism which
>> passes by, stops doors open, no one or nothing get on, door closes buss
>> moves on. The crew follows a truck to a mine where robots are removing
>> raw goods loading it on another truck going towards an automated
>> manufacturing plant which was manufacturing other machines........ The
>> crew then moves to a "house" go inside and observe machines bringing
>> prepared food, setting it on a table. Minutes later other machinery
>> removes and trashes the food, places utensils on a shelf: other machines
>> gather these items. And much more. The crew decides that whoever or what
>> ever set up everything to care for the inhabitants, their needs and
>> leaving them with no duties, purpose, responsibilities or anything to
>> do. But disease had completely decimated all life on the planet
>> entirely, but what remained was the complex machinery simply running
>> endlessly serving nothing or no one.
>>> Now you also say that natural selection cannot account for the appearance of new species or for the fossil record in general, which according to your understanding of what evolution predicts, fails to show gradual transitions. So if your designer is to account for the appearance of new species at many points separated by many millions of years, you are automatically positing a designer that acted on the earth many times, millions of times, indeed, over the course of a few billion years. That's a specific claim. Unless the designer is extremely good at covering his tracks, you might expect to find evidence of at least its more recent visits.
>>>
>>> So, automatically the gaps in knowledge that the designer is supposed to fill give you a list of potential characteristics and even some testable ideas about the characteristics of that designer (always assuming that you are serious that there's no religious motivation behind this and that it's not all God-of-the-Gaps). It would be positively bizarre for a scientist to come to the conclusion that the biological world was designed, and then to retire from the field. If true, it's such a fantastic idea, that any scientist worth his salt would be thinking of any possible way to look for evidence that would constrain the characteristics of the designer.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>> Ok, but this is not a fair representative of my position.
> Nonetheless, your position implies some attributes of the Designer that you invoke to explain the things you think cannot be explained by known natural causes. Anyone approaching the question from a scientific point of view would make those hypothetical attributes explicit and look to see what evidence could be found to support or refute them. If you simply wave away all questions about the designer, then it becomes obvious that it's not really about science for you.
>>

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:07:42 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>> Nothing that you wrote here challenges anything I wrote in the paragraph you are responding to. If you posit a designer to explain the origin of life, then the designer was present on earth when life originated, several billion years ago. Everything you offer as evidence for a designer, "IE science cannot explain X," puts constraints on when, and how often, the designer was present and active. So it's no good just waving away all questions about the designer - each piece of evidence that, as you see it, points to a designer, also tells you something about the hypothetical designer's attributes and activities.
>
>As I pointed out there is no empirical evidence as to the identity of
>the designer. But studying and analyzing it's design, this might provide
>certain information regarding the designer. However, only the briefest
>outline below noting it's intellect, capacities and abilities are listed:
>
>1) virtually infinitely intelligent with potently endless capacities,
>resources and power with 2) engineering capabilities for planning and
>programing, setting up automatic systems which role out strategies and
>techniques far in advance of needs 3) the formation of an information
>coding system (DNA) which is universal, ancient and changeless, which
>can automatically be utilized throughout the future encoded in the first
>living cells with system for living systems designed with the ability to
>reproduce and transfer information to offspring. 4) the development and
>programming sophisticated edit and repair machinery for errors and
>omissions in coded information 5) the development of a 2nd information
>programming system (homeobox genes) far in advance of need containing
>the wherewith for various animal body forms of their organs which are
>universal, ancient, unchanged throughout history of multicellular life.

You forgot to mention that your Designer also has to have existed
prior to the beginning of the universe, in order to design the fine
tuning of the universe, and to have survived at least to the
appearance of multicellular life on Earth, in order to design those
homeobox genes. That's a span of many billions of years.

So, with all of your specifications in mind, can you think of any
natural Designer capable of meeting them? Do you agree that your
specifications describe a Designer which is beyond the natural laws of
the universe?

[Oxyaena]

You know, "No, I won't," is a much more concise way of putting it than
that verbose garbage you put on my screen.

[Oxyaena]

On 1/19/2021 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/19/21 8:57 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory
>>> or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>>> scientific methodology?
>>
>> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.
> Not when in searching only for confirming evidence and when contrary or
> falsifying evidence is found ignoring it of seeing it as "no
> information". (adapting Gould's words to this scenario)

Except you haven't found any.

>>
>>> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact that evidence that
>>> falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else thrown into file 13.
>>
>> Such as?
> Stasis observed in the strata for a century until Stephen J. Gould and
> Niles Eldredge brought it forward.

I don't think you've read Gould or Eldredge on this subject.

>>
>>> Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this catagotry.
>>
>> The term "living fossil" is a misnomer, in reality they have evolved
>> just like anything else, these taxa have merely just found niches that
>> are remarkably stable.
> At the same time other critters in the same period of time and the same
> remarkably stable environment did undergo "evolutionary change"?

Do you know what a niche is?

> One of
> the remarkable characteristics of evolution is that it is so elastic
> that can be stretched to fit over anything, regardless of how contrary:
> and so, a person can have it both ways

Sorry, but an argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

>>
>> [snip idiocy]
>>
>

[Burkhard]

No, I can't see how this is supported by the evidence you gave. The only
thing you can say is that they are more resourceful than us (simply on
the basis that so far we can't manufacture life). As you don't have a
theory on how they manufactured life, you don't know anything about how
difficult it is, how much power is needed etc.

2) engineering capabilities for planning and
> programing, setting up automatic systems which role out strategies and
> techniques far in advance of needs

No, you don't know that either. As you don't have proposed a detailed
theory of what they manufactured, you don't know where they drew the
line between (we out this feature in" to "let's build something that is
evolveable". For all the evidence you have given, yes, they may have
planned for a whole range of contingencies in advance, or they worked
more like the less competent of our AI developers do and simply ran a
lot of evolutionary algorithms in parallel with the vague hope some
would work out.

3) the formation of an information
> coding system (DNA) which is universal, ancient and changeless, which
> can automatically be utilized throughout the future encoded in the first
> living cells with system for living systems designed with the ability to
> reproduce and transfer information to offspring.

That is really not a claim about the designer, that is restating what
you claim they designed

4) the development and
> programming sophisticated edit and repair machinery for errors and
> omissions in coded information 5) the development of a 2nd information
> programming system (homeobox genes) far in advance of need containing
> the wherewith for various animal body forms of their organs which are
> universal, ancient, unchanged throughout history of multicellular life.

Same, these are not claims about the designer, that is restating what
you claim they designed. And because you don't have even a seed theory
about the designer (odd for an "intelligent design theory") you also
don't know, and can't even speculate, if any of these characteristics
are intended features, unintended bugs, or constraints the designer was
under.

The "universality " of DNA could be what the designer thought was a good
idea and intentionally designed, (or intentionally designed as a bad
idea - e.g. as a control study to evaluate ecosystems with multiple
codes, our planet just drew the short straw), it could be that the
designers found out that the laws of nature mean nothing else is
possible or works (or at least nothing they could do/think of), or they
had planned to have lots of codes as their preferred solution, but then
their funding was cut, or they screwed up and the others crashed on
launch - they are now the laughing stock of the inter-galactic community
for making such a rookie mistake.

That's the poverty of the design "theory" that has no proper theory of
design or designer - not just that nobody knows the answer to any of
these questions, there is not even a pathway to research that could
answer them.

There are a few inferences we can draw with some confidence from the
specific evidence you gave - stasis e.g. means the designer is still at
work and continues to create new species, they at least tolerate
sub-optimal "good enough" solutions, they can't or don't want to reuse
some successful designs across lineages, and they at least tolerate (or
aim for) outcomes that keep competition balanced and don't give any
species too much advantage.

[broger...@gmail.com]

You've left out many, more specific attributes. For example, if the Designer designed (and built) the first life on earth, then the Designer was present on earth several billion years ago. If the Designer was responsible for designing and implanting homeobox genes in early metazoans, he came back to earth (or stayed on earth) about 600 million years ago. If natural selection cannot account for the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record, then the Designer had to come back millions of times over the past several billion years to design and build all the new species.

That's all separate from the question of whether you think that your arguments have shown that (1) no currently known physical explanation could account for life or that (2) no possible physicalexplanation could account for life. If you think (1), then the alternative to the possibilities for a designer is simply that there's a way physical laws can produce life which we haven't figured out yet - there are plenty of scientific questions in all fields of science for which we have no answers yet. If you think (2) then you are arguing for a supernatural Designer, and claiming that the designer is supernatural is, at least, a specific claim about the designer's attributes.

If you sincerely want to make no specific claims at all about the Designer, then all you can say is "Whatever caused life to appear on earth and develop as it did is the thing I'm calling Designer." In that case, when you really, truly make no claims about the characteristics of the Designer, you're not saying anything beyond "Something caused the origin of life on earth and I don't know what it was." Which is fine.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 09:59:13 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

You say that Dean's attributes aren't supported by the evidence he
provided. And that is technically correct. None of the evidence Dean
provided, or any cdesign proponentsist provides for that matter, is
positive evidence that an intelligent agent was responsible for its
creation. Cdesign proponentsists like Dean don't provide positive
evidence for design or a Designer. Instead, they argue negative
evidence against non-design, and of phenomena that don't have
detailed, step-by-step explanations of its origins.

But that's not the issue here. Instead, the issue here is that Dean
believes those are the attributes that are required for his evidence
to exist. And as long as Dean believes that, it does you no good to
say those attributes are unnecessary. To the contrary, to say that
merely affirms in the minds of cdesign proponentsists like Dean, that
you mindlessly handwave away the obvious evidence of Design, because
you're too dishonest to admit a Designer exists.

[Oxyaena]

Show us what metrics you use to determine was designed. No, establish
that design is even a possibility, and THEN we can talk about "studying
and analyzing its design."

[snip mindless bullshit]

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/19/21 1:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/19/21 8:57 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>
>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's theory
>>> or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this legitimate
>>> scientific methodology?
>>
>> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.

> Not when in searching only for confirming evidence and when contrary or
> falsifying evidence is found ignoring it of seeing it as "no
> information". (adapting Gould's words to this scenario)

Who besides you is doing this?

>>> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact that evidence that
>>> falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else thrown into file 13.
>>
>> Such as?

> Stasis observed in the strata for a century until Stephen J. Gould and
> Niles Eldredge brought it forward.

Can you find anything in the writings of Darwin or of any other
respected evolutionary biologist which says that morphological statis is
contrary to what the theory of evolution predicts?

Once you have spent some time on that task, look for information on what
the theory of evolution *does* predict, what observations would be
contrary to that, and what is actually observed.

(You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would cause
you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to design.)

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"If one day, my words are against science, choose science."
- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

[Burkhard]

That was most certainly not my intention. Quite on the contrary, for the
purpose of the post, I took the design hypothesis as accepted, and not
just that but accepted on the basis of the evidence Ron Dean has chosen
himself

Once one does this, two issues arise. A) is it possible to say complete
agnostic about the designer after this inference was made and b) if not,
what attributes of the designer can we infer?

Ron Dean's initial answer has initially been A) - that merely making the
design inference does not commit to any other facts about the designer.
Bill Rogers and I think this is false, and we gave a couple of
counter-examples. IF Ron's evidence supports a designer in the first
place, THEN that designer has e.g. been periodically involved with
making new designs,and continues to do so. I would have thought that
that's a quite interesting fact about the designer that ID folks shout
shout about form the rooftops, as a genuine novel scientific find.
Especially if they want to ally fears that they are merely
fundamentalist Christians in a misappropriated lab-coat. Because
essentially it shows that far from doing the job over a few days and
then "seeing it was good", the designer(s) remains quite active (which
should make it easier to find more about them)

Now in this post, Dean concedes this to a degree (while remaining as
unresponsive to the specific characteristics that we show follow from
his evidence as he was every time this issue was raised over the years)
Instead, he now seems to accept that the design inference does lead to
some very abstract attributes of the designer after all, and he proposes
a few.

Problem is, none of them follow (or are even attributes of the designer
at all) as I tried to show. NOT because they can all be explained
without designer, we are still accepting arguendo that inference.
Rather, the evidence he himself gives is incapable of distinguishing
between difference candidates of the designer, and does not lead, as he
claims, to a designer who is "virtually infinitely intelligent with
potently endless capacities, resources and power" They are just as
compatible with a designer who isn't really good at what they are doing.

But that does not wave away the evidence of design, as there is. Rather
it shows that t points to attributes different form those Dea would
rather want the designer to have.

Strangely enough, no ID propensitists that I know of, despite their
claims to ask for "open mindedness towards the evidence" seems to
explore the hypothesis that life on earth was a hastily clobbered
together genocidal bio-weapon to make earth inhospitable for their enemy
civilization that can't cope with oxygen e.g.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:26:48 -0500, Oxyaena <oxy...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

What you describe above illustrates one of the many word games cdesign
proponentsists play. They describe designs, of patterns and
functions, which are nouns, and then assert that implies purposeful,
intentional, conscious design, which is a verb. That is the
distinction Dawkins makes when he speaks of "apparent design". He
does not mean there are no patterns and functions, but instead that
their creation doesn't require purpose, intent, and consciousness.

[Ron Dean]

On 1/20/21 2:46 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 1/19/2021 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 1/19/21 8:57 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's
>>>> theory or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this
>>>> legitimate scientific methodology?
>>>
>>> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.
>> Not when in searching only for confirming evidence and when contrary
>> or falsifying evidence is found ignoring it of seeing it as "no
>> information". (adapting Gould's words to this scenario)
>
> Except you haven't found any.

Design in nature is evidence.  Denial of such design falls into the same
category as stasis it is seen as "no information". IOW to acknowledge
the reality of design in nature, means a designer as a distinct and
rational possibility!

>
>>>
>>>> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact that evidence that
>>>> falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else thrown into file
>>>> 13.
>>>
>>> Such as?
>> Stasis observed in the strata for a century until Stephen J. Gould
>> and Niles Eldredge brought it forward.
>
> I don't think you've read Gould or Eldredge on this subject.
>

I certainly have. I own several of their books which I've read.

>>>
>>>> Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this catagotry.
>>>
>>> The term "living fossil" is a misnomer, in reality they have evolved
>>> just like anything else, these taxa have merely just found niches
>>> that are remarkably stable.
>> At the same time other critters in the same period of time and the
>> same remarkably stable environment did undergo "evolutionary change"?
>
> Do you know what a niche is?
>
>> One of the remarkable characteristics of evolution is that it is so
>> elastic that can be stretched to fit over anything, regardless of how
>> contrary: and so, a person can have it both ways
>
> Sorry, but an argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

In case you failed to recognize it, this demonstrates another example of
the un-falsifiable nature of Darwinian evolution. Do you understand the
significance of this?

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:14:30 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

To the contrary, the above demonstrates your misunderstanding of ToE.
ToE does not claim to predict exactly how a particular species will
respond to selective pressures. ToE does claim that a particular
species' possible responses are constrained by its extant genome and
random mutations and the availability of other niches.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:14:30 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I charitably assume that when you use the anachronistic "Darwinian
evolution", you really mean ToE.

What your comments above demonstrate is your misunderstanding of ToE.
It does not claim to predict specifically how any specific population
will respond to any specific environment. Nor should you expect ToE
to do so. Instead, ToE does claim that a populations' response is
contingent on its current genome, the probabilities of chance
mutations, and the availability of alternative niches. Some parts of
a population may respond with very little morphological change, while
others parts may find and adapt to new niches, while other parts may
go extinct.

In the case of your living fossils, you have no idea what percentage
of the ancestral population did what. All you focus on is the
apparent lack of change recorded in the fossil record. You don't know
what percentage went extinct. You don't know how many different
species arose from that parent population.

Take for example the classic living fossil Coelacanth. This taxon
refers to the Order Coelacanthiformes, of which there are now only two
living species, both caught in deep ocean, a vast but low-oxygen
environment which has existed essentially unchanged at least since the
Permian. However, in the past, this Order was not limited to deep
ocean, but also lived in estuaries and swamps. If in fact a species
of Coelacanthiformes is ancestral to tetrapods, that species could
have been as different to extant Coelacanths as rodents are to
monkeys.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:56:34 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I accept your intention is as you stated, to argue the veracity of
Dean's evidence and not his premise. To be clear, I don't say you
handwave away the evidence of Design. I and others, IIRC you
included, have posted comments similar to what you post above. And to
the best of my recollection, Dean repeatedly responded to those
comments then as he does in this latest iteration, and as I describe
above, that those explanations handwave away the obvious evidence of
Design.

Dean has repeatedly and over many years posted the same evidence, and
has unambiguously asserted that his evidence as presented infers
purposeful Design and an Intelligent Designer. So, your intentions
notwithstanding, you face the challenge I describe above.

[Ron Dean]

I tried to confine my remarks to  4-3.8 billion years ago during the
beginning on life on this planet. What you mentioned would have to go
back about 14 billion years. What you brought up is yet another line of
evidence.

>
> So, with all of your specifications in mind, can you think of any
> natural Designer capable of meeting them? Do you agree that your
> specifications describe a Designer which is beyond the natural laws of
> the universe?

Considering what is know about DNA it's difficult to believe that a
thoughtless, random, mindless process could have come up with the
complexity and utility of DNA so efficient, effective and immutable so
early in the history of life. Everything in nature uses the same
informational code ATGC the same transfer method information to RNA
etc.etc the formation and shaping of protein with the same 20 amino
acids from bacteria, yeast, insects, fish, shell fish, reptiles and
mammals. So when one considers these facts alone one must accept without
evidence that natural laws of the universe could have accomplished this.
The question is: what are the steps through which a mindless random
process would have gone through? Who can say: and how is it proven?  And
the homeobox genes notwithstanding which are far more consonant and
analogous to extraordinary highly advanced engineering. These genes are
uniform throughout the animal kingdom. These genes, also called master
control genes, are short (180 base pairs), ancient (prior to the
Cambrian), highly conserved and universal. They control the development
of the body forms, organs of every animal from insects, fish, reptiles
and mammals by both timing and which parts of the genes are turned on.
These genes appeared prior to the Cambrian and continue to the present
virtually unchanged. The eye for example. It was believed that the eye
evolved at least 39 times and that over millions of years, starting from
a light sensitive spot, eyes gradually became increasingly complex and
functional. However, this one organ was present highly developed in
trilobites and other Cambrian organisms. Recently, the Pax6 gene was
removed from a mouse and placed in the genome of a fruit fly. The mouse
gene, took control of the fly's downstream genes and produced fly eyes.
The same gene from a fruit fly was placed in a frog and a frog eye was
produced by the fruit flye's Pax6 master control gene. It's know that a
hox gene called "tinman gene" controls the formation of the heart,
another homeobox gene called Hoxa-A11 controls the formation of kidneys
in all members of the animal kingdom.

As scientist understand the role of homeobox genes, Darwinism or
Neo-Darwinism seems less tenable. Indeed evolutionary change did occur,
but not through the finely graded series of transitional forms, but
rather in abrupt, sudden changes as depicted in the earths strata. Once
a new species appears it remaims in stasis until the programed timing
elements in the Homeobox genes take effect. What happens is the Homeobox
gene, the master control genes gives different signals through timing
and the way the gene is played which I suspect is programed into the
homobox genes which affects the hox genes sequencing or it's turn or
turn off functions.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=homeobox+and+kidneys&va=b&t=hc&iax=images&ia=images.


> When science is placed in the narrow, limited and restricted box of naturalism, then looking outside these walls is not kosher.
--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

On 1/20/21 11:18 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 1/19/21 1:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On 1/19/21 8:57 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's
>>>> theory or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this
>>>> legitimate scientific methodology?
>>>
>>> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.
>
>> Not when in searching only for confirming evidence and when contrary
>> or falsifying evidence is found ignoring it of seeing it as "no
>> information". (adapting Gould's words to this scenario)
>
> Who besides you is doing this?

This was done  for a century by paleontologist until the late Gould and
Eldredge brought it to everyone's attention, When searching for
supporting evidence for evolutionary change paleontologist saw "stasis"
as "no evidence".- S.J. Gould

Face  it, stasis or no change is exactly what paleontologist did not
want or need, they wanted proof.

>
>>>> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact that evidence that
>>>> falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else thrown into file
>>>> 13.
>>>
>>> Such as?
>
>> Stasis observed in the strata for a century until Stephen J. Gould
>> and Niles Eldredge brought it forward.
> Can you find anything in the writings of Darwin or of any other
> respected evolutionary biologist which says that morphological statis
> is contrary to what the theory of evolution predicts?

An impossible task you assigned me. In order to fulfill this request, I
would have to read every book, magazine article of Gould and Eldredge as
well as other respected evolutionary biologist searching for something
that in all probability is not there. I would venture not a single
paleontologist searching the rocks was searching for "stasis" or no
change over time. Quite the contrary, they were searching for finely
graded series of fossils. I would venture to say you cannot find where
before G & E anyone was predicting "stasis" in the fossil record. I know
during Darwin's time salutation (stasis) was brought out by critics of
Darwin's theory. But he was warned against his stand for gradualism and
against saltation by his "bulldog" Huxley.

> Once you have spent some time on that task, look for information on
what the theory of evolution *does* predict, what observations would be
contrary to that, and what is actually observed.

Theory predicts finely graded series of transitional fossils between
separate species. In the fossil record what is actually found is abrupt
appearance of new species without predecessors, followed by long periods
of stasis and disappearance from the record. This is typical but not
always. There are exceptions to the rule: IE the Horse series and the
Whale series. But one must ask is the real? How do we know the various
intermediates actually left offspring. How is the link between various
intermediates determined. We were not there to observe so, we are left
with faith.

>
> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would cause
> you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to design.)
>

My devotion is to what I observe.  Can you say that evolution does not
hold an a pirori consideration for you? If you falsify design in
reproduction,  or show the steps in the beginning of life from dead
matter the origin DNA or Homeobox genes or the abrupt appearance of
highly developed organisms during the Cambrian with actual
interconnecting links to predecessors ~ I will drop design.

--
talk origins

[Oxyaena]

On 1/20/2021 2:14 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/20/21 2:46 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 1/19/2021 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 1/19/21 8:57 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's
>>>>> theory or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this
>>>>> legitimate scientific methodology?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.
>>> Not when in searching only for confirming evidence and when contrary
>>> or falsifying evidence is found ignoring it of seeing it as "no
>>> information". (adapting Gould's words to this scenario)
>>
>> Except you haven't found any.
> Design in nature is evidence.

What would design look like? What would we expect to look design rather
than not-designed? The natural world is filled with complex "designs"
that would be unthinkable to an actual intelligent designer. Filled with
redundant systems and traits, sometimes even outright harmful, or at
best mildly deleterious, nothing we see in nature is efficient and
designed in an intelligent manner.

> Denial of such design falls into the same
> category as stasis it is seen as "no information". IOW to acknowledge
> the reality of design in nature, means a designer as a distinct and
> rational possibility!

Then your designer must be a drunk one.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact that evidence that
>>>>> falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else thrown into file
>>>>> 13.
>>>>
>>>> Such as?
>>> Stasis observed in the strata for a century until Stephen J. Gould
>>> and Niles Eldredge brought it forward.
>>
>> I don't think you've read Gould or Eldredge on this subject.
>>
> I certainly have. I own several of their books which I've read.

I sincerely doubt that.

>>>>
>>>>> Both "stasis" and "living fossils" falls into this catagotry.
>>>>
>>>> The term "living fossil" is a misnomer, in reality they have evolved
>>>> just like anything else, these taxa have merely just found niches
>>>> that are remarkably stable.
>>> At the same time other critters in the same period of time and the
>>> same remarkably stable environment did undergo "evolutionary change"?
>>
>> Do you know what a niche is?

[crickets]

>>
>>> One of the remarkable characteristics of evolution is that it is so
>>> elastic that can be stretched to fit over anything, regardless of how
>>> contrary: and so, a person can have it both ways
>>
>> Sorry, but an argument from incredulity is no argument at all.
>
> In case you failed to recognize it, this demonstrates another example of
> the un-falsifiable nature of Darwinian evolution. Do you understand the
> significance of this?

Show us where Darwin predicts morphological stasis would falsify his
theory, and then show us what evolution actually predicts and what it'd
take to falsify it. I'm waiting.

>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip idiocy]
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Oxyaena]

You just admitted that your own claim is a strawman.

[snip strawman]

>
> > Once you have spent some time on that task, look for information on
> what the theory of evolution *does* predict, what observations would be
> contrary to that, and what is actually observed.
>
> Theory predicts finely graded series of transitional fossils between
> separate species.

And, believe it or not, we *do* find those "finely graded series of
transitional fossils." Every fossil we find is a transitional fossil.
We've got tons of them. They fill entire fucking warehouses.

> In the fossil record what is actually found is abrupt
> appearance of new species without predecessors, followed by long periods
> of stasis and disappearance from the record. This is typical but not
> always. There are exceptions to the rule: IE the Horse series and the
> Whale series. But one must ask is the real? How do we know the various
> intermediates actually left offspring. How is the link between various
> intermediates determined. We were not there to observe so, we are left
> with faith.

Good thing we don't have to solely rely on the fossil record for
evidence of evolution, and besides, do you know how rare fossilization
is? The vast majority of organisms that have ever lived died without
being preserved. Fossilization requires a very *specific* set of
circumstances.

>
>>
>> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would cause
>> you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to design.)
>>
> My devotion is to what I observe.

Obviously you need your eyes checked.

[snip Gish Gallop]

[Ron Dean]

I think you arrived late to the party, Jill. My point was stasis and
fine graduated series are exactly opposites. But evolution is so elastic
it can be stretched over both extremes.

--
talk origins

[Glenn]

You're forming a conclusion based on an incomplete study.
If you haven't followed this guy, watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs1xv0ZEN-U

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:26:03 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

Your previous comments, still preserved in the quoted text above, fit
the origin of the universe as easily as the origin of life. And you
have several times claimed both as evidence of ID. But whether you
meant 4 billion years or 14 billion years, really doesn't alter the
issue I raised. For you to make that distinction here is just silly.

I applaud your ability to string together a whole bunch of words which
somehow don't even come close to answering my question. It's as if
they were designed to avoid the question altogether. I charitably
assume that's an illusion.

I have asked that question of you many times before. And each time
you avoided giving a direct answer. Why do you have so much trouble
answering it? Do you not understand the question?

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:20:21 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

Once again, your personal opinions don't inform the discussion.

>My point was stasis and
>fine graduated series are exactly opposites. But evolution is so elastic
>it can be stretched over both extremes.

Your explicitly expressed point, still preserved in the quoted text
above, is that ToE is "unfalsifiable" because it's "so elastic".
Regardless of whatever previous comments your point alludes, your
point is factually incorrect, as my comments show.

Also, in a previous post I showed that your description of stasis and
"fine graduated series" as opposites, is also factually incorrect. I
charitably assume your description is based on your incorrect
understanding of what the two terms actually mean.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:19:31 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If by theory you refer to ToE, you are incorrect. I acknowledge ToE
must be consistent with observations of the fossil record. Your
personal opinion notwithstanding, ToE is entirely consistent with
geologically abrupt appearance and stasis observed in the fossil
record. You have been told this many times. Even G&E said it. Why
do you persist in saying otherwise?

> In the fossil record what is actually found is abrupt
>appearance of new species without predecessors, followed by long periods
>of stasis and disappearance from the record. This is typical but not
>always. There are exceptions to the rule: IE the Horse series and the
>Whale series. But one must ask is the real? How do we know the various
>intermediates actually left offspring. How is the link between various
>intermediates determined. We were not there to observe so, we are left
>with faith.
>
>>
>> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would cause
>> you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to design.)
>>
>My devotion is to what I observe.  Can you say that evolution does not
>hold an a pirori consideration for you? If you falsify design in
>reproduction,  or show the steps in the beginning of life from dead
>matter the origin DNA or Homeobox genes or the abrupt appearance of
>highly developed organisms during the Cambrian with actual
>interconnecting links to predecessors ~ I will drop design.

--

[Ron Dean]

No, they never believed in stasis, it's contrary to what they wanted to
find.
>
> [snip strawman]
>
> Strawman = unwelcome evidence to a brainwashed individual!

>>
>>  > Once you have spent some time on that task, look for information
>> on what the theory of evolution *does* predict, what observations
>> would be contrary to that, and what is actually observed.
>>
>> Theory predicts finely graded series of transitional fossils between
>> separate species.
>
> And, believe it or not, we *do* find those "finely graded series of
> transitional fossils." Every fossil we find is a transitional fossil.
> We've got tons of them. They fill entire fucking warehouses.

This is a lie!!

>
>> In the fossil record what is actually found is abrupt appearance of
>> new species without predecessors, followed by long periods of stasis
>> and disappearance from the record. This is typical but not always.
>> There are exceptions to the rule: IE the Horse series and the Whale
>> series. But one must ask is the real? How do we know the various
>> intermediates actually left offspring. How is the link between
>> various intermediates determined. We were not there to observe so, we
>> are left with faith.
>
> Good thing we don't have to solely rely on the fossil record for
> evidence of evolution,

True, the evidence isn't there!

> and besides, do you know how rare fossilization is?

Okay but the fossils are not there!

> The vast majority of organisms that have ever lived died without being
> preserved. Fossilization requires a very *specific* set of circumstances.
>

This is factual - fossilization is extremely rare, but that on leaves
room for imagination which become evidence supporting evolution.

>>>
>>> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would
>>> cause you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to
>>> design.)
>>>
>> My devotion is to what I observe.
>
> Obviously you need your eyes checked.
>
> [snip Gish Gallop]

A gish gallop?  What does a galloping horse have to do with anything?
You have nothing to offer so, why don't you a drop out!!


--
talk origins

[Ron Dean]

I'm not committed to this particular world view, Jill. You can not
_show_ me where Darwin or any the dedicated evolutionist before G & E
advocated stasis in the fossil record. Of course you and others have
_told_ me several times. But opinions don't amount to evidence.

> Even G&E said it. Why
> do you persist in saying otherwise?

G & E offered a new hypothesis to account for the appearance of new
species in the fossil record and the absence of antecedents leading up
to the the abrupt appearance of new species followed by long periods of
"stasis". Gould offered "peripheral Isolates" as the explanation for the
abrupt appearance in the strata. And according to him we should not
expect to find the ancestral lines of these species. As In regards to
stasis: according to Gould stasis was seen as "no data" or "no evidence"
by earlier researchers. It can be said that stasis was not the evidence
they were searching for.

>
>> In the fossil record what is actually found is abrupt
>> appearance of new species without predecessors, followed by long periods
>> of stasis and disappearance from the record. This is typical but not

>> always. There are exceptions to the rule: IE the Horse series asho me w]nd the

>> Whale series. But one must ask is the real? How do we know the various
>> intermediates actually left offspring. How is the link between various
>> intermediates determined. We were not there to observe so, we are left
>> with faith.
>>
>>> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would cause
>>> you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to design.)
>>>
>> My devotion is to what I observe.  Can you say that evolution does not
>> hold an a pirori consideration for you? If you falsify design in
>> reproduction,  or show the steps in the beginning of life from dead
>> matter the origin DNA or Homeobox genes or the abrupt appearance of
>> highly developed organisms during the Cambrian with actual
>> interconnecting links to predecessors ~ I will drop design.


--

talk origins

[Ron Dean]

This is utter nonsense! Your point?

--
talk origins

[Mark Isaak]

That is a comment about yourself, not about life or its origins.

Considering what is known about natural propensities for self-assembly
at all scales, and what we know about the power of genetic algorithms
for creating efficiency, it is easy to believe that such a process could
account for DNA.

Considering what we know about how designers work, it is difficult to
believe that an incompetent designer could have put together something
so complex and got it to work, or that a highly competent designer would
have made genetics so complex in the first place.

> Everything in nature uses the same
> informational code ATGC the same transfer method information to RNA
> etc.etc the formation and shaping of protein with the same 20 amino
> acids from bacteria, yeast, insects, fish, shell fish, reptiles and
> mammals. So when one considers these facts alone one must accept without
> evidence that natural laws of the universe could have accomplished this.
> The question is: what are the steps through which a mindless random
> process would have gone through? Who can say: and how is it proven?  And
> the homeobox genes notwithstanding which are far more consonant and
> analogous to extraordinary highly advanced engineering. These genes are
> uniform throughout the animal kingdom.

No, they most definitely are not uniform throughout the animal kingdom.
Homeobox genes are more conserved than many other genes, but they
still show differences between different animals, and the differences
reflect descent with modification exactly as the theory of evolution
would predict. The complete sequences of many homeobox genes from many
different animals are available online. Go look at them for yourself if
you don't believe me.

> [...]

> As scientist understand the role of homeobox genes, Darwinism or
> Neo-Darwinism seems less tenable.

Why is it, then, that the scientists who do understand the role of
homeobox genes do not share your opinion?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-01-21 04:03:17 +0000, Ron Dean said:

> On 1/20/21 7:51 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> [ … ]

>>>>>>>
>> Obviously you need your eyes checked.
>>
>> [snip Gish Gallop]
> A gish gallop?  What does a galloping horse have to do with anything?
> You have nothing to offer so, why don't you a drop out!!

Is it really possible that you don't know what a Gish Gallop is?


--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[RonO]

On 1/18/2021 1:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/18/21 7:37 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 1/18/2021 12:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 1/17/21 9:35 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2021 8:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>

Dean, before you run again only to come back and put up one of the Top
Six and claim not to remember doing it before, write yourself a note and
put it on your computer. Remind yourself of how you have had to run
repeatedly from how you use the Top Six. They are still listed below,
and they are the same Top Six that you refuse to understand. You only
lie about them. I have never asked any IDiot to disprove the best
evidence that they claim to have. What I have always done is what you
refuse to do every single time that you put one up. If IDiots were
really interested in doing the science, they would learn something from
the science, and understand something about nature. IDiots are claiming
that nature is the creation, so they should be able to do the same
science that everyone else does in order to understand nature. The ID
perps and IDiots like yourself have always lied about being able to do
the ID science because you never intended to do any science and learn
something about nature. The Top Six are just the best fool the rubes
god-of-the-gaps arguments left to IDiot/creationists, and you have
admitted in this thread that, that is all you want to use the Big Bang
for. You never wanted to understand the science or you would be doing
something positive and building your best IDiot alternative out of the
Top Six instead of just lying to yourself about them one at a time.

You need to remember how you could not deal with reality the next time
that you put up one of the Top Six. There isn't an IDiot posting on TO
that can deal honestly with the Top Six, and that is why none of them
have ever come to your assistance when you have asked for help on the
Top Six in the past, and none of them support you now.

Ron Okimoto

>>>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's
>>>>> theory or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this

>>>>> legitimate scientific methodology? What makes this non - scinetific

>>>>> is the fact that evidence that falsifies evolution is ignored,

>>>>> overlooked or else thrown into file 13. Both "stasis" and "living
>>>>> fossils" falls into this catagotry. And although, his critics
>>>>> pointed this out to Darwin, he recognized the fact, but greatly
>>>>> preferred gradualism and over a centrury, until the Late S. J.
>>>>> Gould and N. Eldredge the fact of "stasis" was observed not
>>>>> reported, and ignored by professionals seeking to "prove" gradual
>>>>> evolutionary change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Observation is a cornorstone of the scientific method, followed by
>>>>> hypothesis to explain what is observed then design experments to
>>>>> test the hyptheses, then conduct experment and repeat and repeat
>>>>> compairing the results with observation and finally come to a
>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't know how science works.
>>> I gave the source: britannica.
>>
>> You don't know how science works.  The reason that you do not know is
>> willful ignorance.  Britannica is likely not that bad, you just remain
>> ignorant of many of the the things that they told you.
>>
> False accusation: not that it matters to you!
>
> Who is they? Unlike you I read both sides.
>
> One of the most impressive things that any scientists could ever do is
> to demonstrate that the previous generation was wrong about something,
> and that they have a better option and can demonstrate it.  Just because
> all creationism has been is denial in the form of scientific creationism
> and intelligent design creationism, obviously, does not make science
> work that way.  Science works and creationism never could do the science
> that was claimed possible. Both IDiocy and scientific creationism
> claimed that they could do the same science everyone else was doing, but
> they lied.
>
>>> Have you ever read anything by Michael Denton or Behe or anyone else
>>> of intelligent design point of view. I doubt it. If not you get your
>>> information from biases sources.
>>
>> Yes,  Have you? Really, use the Top Six in an honest and
>> straightforward manner to build something instead of wallow in denial.
>> If you do not come up with an alternative similar to what Behe and
>> Denton have told you exists, you did it wrong and should ask for help.
>>
> What am I denying: why do I need an alternative?
>>>>
>>>> Look at your use of the Big Bang (#1 of the ID perp's Top Six), but
>>>> #6 in the list that was ordered by their importance to IDiocy by
>>>> Sewell. There is no interest in doing any science pertaining to the
>>>> Big Bang by IDiots like yourself that have to lie about being
>>>> creationists.
>>> Creatiionist are Genesis based. I never appeal to Genesis.
>>> Furthermore, creationist believe in a six 24 hour creation.  A
>>> literaal Adam and Eve and talking snakes and the fall from the Garden
>>> of Edin. I reject this. Creationist believe in a Universal flood: I
>>> do not. Creationist believe that the God of the Bible is the creator.
>>> I never discuss religion, or the Bible or God, I observe evidence of
>>> design, and design implies a designer, but nothing about design
>>> identifies the designer.. Neither do I know of any evidence pointing
>>> to the identity of the designer. Nor is the identity of the designer
>>> important.
>>
>> No creationists are not just Genesis based.  The ID perps profess to
>> run a "Big Tent" creationist operation.  All religions are welcome
>> that want to participate.  They even call it their Bit Tent strategy.
>> The type of creationists that can still lie to themselves about the
>> intelligent design creationists scam can be any type of creationist.
>> You have Kalkidas as an obvious example for how long on TO.  You do
>> not see Hindu ID perps at the Discovery Institute only due to the fact
>> that the ID perps are religious bigots and do not want to support any
>> other religion but their own.  Really the guys that ran the Wedge
>> strategy and wanted to teach their brand of creationism in the public
>> schools did not have to change the name of what they were doing.  The
>> Supreme court had already told them that they could teach creation
>> science in a comparative religion class, but the ID perps did not want
>> to let their kids know about other religions.  The Top Six were all
>> used by the creation science ploy.  There turned out to be no
>> difference between intelligent design creationism and scientific
>> creationism in terms of the creation science.
>>
>> Hiding and lying about their religious beliefs is a major part of the
>> ID scam.  The whole point of the name change was to try to fool the
>> courts that would have to hear the cases.  They did not fool the court
>> in the only example of the failure of their bait and switch scam.
>>
>> You aren't fooling anyone either.  At least, no one but yourself.
>> Really, most competent and half way honest IDiots already went back to
>> being plain old religious creationists after Dover.  The ID Network of
>> academics quit and went home.  The IDiot science organization (ISCID)
>> died when most everyone quit except the ID perps making a living off
>> the scam.  There never was any ID science, so there is no longer a
>> reason to lie about the situation any longer.  Phillip Johnson quit
>> the ID scam after the IDiot federal court loss and admitted that the
>> ID science had never existed, and that it was up to the ID perps
>> claiming that some science could be done to produce such science.
>> Johnson was the guy that the other ID perps claimed got the scam
>> rolling, he developed their Wedge strategy, and he never retracted his
>> admission nor supported the ID scam after it in public.  He made that
>> admission 14 years ago, so why are you still an IDiot stupid enough to
>> use the IDiot scam junk?
> Everything I advocate is the result of my own research and study. As far
> as I'm concerned the strongest evidence points to design. I'm in
> reference to: 1) the origin or life from dead matter. the origin of the
> DNA Code and living cells with the ability to reproduce. 2) the origin
> of the DNA edit and repair machinery. 3) The origin of the homeobox
> genes (IE Universal Master Control Genes) 4) the real story of life as
> revealed in the fossil record: abrupt appearance of new forms without
> known precursors, the virtual universal existence of "stasis" as typical
> of the fossil record rather than finely graduated gradual transitional
> fossils. 5) biology's big bang of the Cambrian and the apparent of most
> phylum.
>>
>>>> The reason that there is no interest in doing any science is because
>>>> you really do not want to understand that aspect of nature.  You
>>>> only use the Big Bang for denial purposes.  If this were not true
>>>> you would have been able to use the Top Six to build your best IDiot
>>>> alternative based on the science that you can do around each
>>>> god-of-the-gaps arguments.
>>> Denial of the Big Bang. I do not! I have not need to build any
>>> alternatives to the big bang. Every argument I offered are predicated
>>> on evidence from science. Not god-of the-gaps!
>>
>> What a willfully ignorant boob.  You do not have to build an
>> alternative to the Big Bang.  You just have to learn something from
>> the legitimate science and build your IDiot alternative using that
>> science.  Denial isn't building anything.  13 billion years ago your
>> god was responsible for creating the Big Bang.  What do we know
>> happened after that?  8 billion years later your god fine tuned our
>> solar system using materials that it took 8 billion years worth of
>> star deaths to create.  Build your best alternative with the Top Six
>> and see why no other IDiot has ever helped you out when you have asked
>> for assistance with them.  Really, why do you think that Glenn can't
>> even acknowledge that they exist?  Why do you think that Sewell broke
>> up #2 (fine tuning) into two separate events?  He didn't want to face
>> the 8 billion years between those two events and what we have figured
>> out about them.
>>
>> They are only supposed to be used for IDiots to lie to themselves
>> about them one at a time, just like you usually do.  They are not
>> meant to be used to learn anything about nature because in isn't
>> anything that they want to believe.
> You are a wAZDXCZBVSAQzzs6Zziuillofully misrepresenting me.
>>
>>>>
>>>> If IDiots were interested in doing science involving the Big Bang
>>>> why have the IDiot rubes that listen to the ID perps tried to remove
>>>> the Big Bang from their state's science standards.  They succeeded
>>>> in Kansas, and tried in other states like Texas and Oklahoma.  There
>>>> is no interest to understand what the Big Bang is to nature even
>>>> though both the ID perps and the Scientific creationists before them
>>>> used the Big Bang the same way that you just used it on TO.
>>>
>>> You cannot carry on a honest, civil, respectful discussion with
>>> anyone you disagrees with. Here again you slander, verbal attack,
>>> smear and misrepresent. But really that's all you have.
>>
>> You apparently are not competent enough to understand what is being
>> discussed, and do not even know what slander is.
>>
>> What have I stated that is not true?  It may make IDiots like you look
>> bad, but it is only stating the truth.  A reality that you can't deal
>> with except by calling it slander.
>>
> Vertually everything you said about me is a damn lie a deliberate
> misrepresentation.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have nothing to do with whatever goes on in Texas, Oklahoma or
>>> Kansas nor do I support them. I do not advocate ID in public schools.
>>> I accept the evidence that the Big Bang happened, but I have no idea
>>> what caused it to go "bang".
>>
>> You have to deal with how other creationists have dealt with the Big
>> Bang in order to understand why all the other IDiots are running from
>> the Top Six instead of dealing with them in an honest and
>> straightforward manner.  Really, even though the Big Bang still makes
>> the list as one of the top fool the creationist rubes pieces of junk,
>> most IDiots can't stand to know that it happened. They don't want
>> their kids to be taught about it and when it is on the science
>> standards the students are expected to understand what the Big Bang
>> is.  IDiots really do not want their kids to understand the Big Bang.
>> They only use it as a creationist denial argument like you use it.
>>
> You a just a dishonest, false accuser misrepresenting me.
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/UQNLl8XI5r0/m/QbWRmXfdBwAJ
>>>>
>>>> IDiots don't have to disprove the Top Six.  IDiots just have to deal
>>>> with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner. This is
>>>> something that creationists just cannot do.
>>>>
>>>> Start with the Big Bang. Around 13 billion years ago your god was
>>>> responsible for the Big Bang.
> PROVE THIS! No where and at no time can you find where I made any such
> claim!
>>> I've never made this argument! I do_not_ bring god(s) to TO.
>>
>> That is the point, you have never dealt with the Big Bang in an honest
>> and straightforward manner.  You have just used it to lie to yourself
>> for a bit before going on to another of the Top Six to lie to yourself
>> again.  If you were really interested in the science you would be
>> learning something about the Big Bang and using it to build your best
>> creationist alternative.  You should use it to understand what your
>> god did and has done.
>>
> IOW if I'm not using your flawed logic, then I not honestly dealing with
> ID.
>>>> We have figured out quite a lot about what happened after the Big
>>>> Bang, so start building your best IDiot alternative from your best
>>>> argument.  #2 is fine tuning.  Your god would have been responsible
>>>> for fine tuning the physical laws before or during the Big Bang, and
>>>> things unfolded after that based on those physical laws.  Another
>>>> round of fine tuning may have been required when our solar system
>>>> formed out of dead star material, stars that formed and died after
>>>> the Big Bang.  It took around 8 billion years for the material that
>>>> our solar system is made of to be created.
>>> Here again, I never bring god(s) to TO. So, why do you continue to
>>> misrepresent me and my positions?
>>
>> Why keep lying, what is your intelligent designer?
> As I've stated previously, I know of no evidence pointing to the
> identity of the designer. But since there is design in nature a designer
> is inferred.
>> If you still want to keep lying to yourself, just put in "intelligent
>> designer" where your god would be and build your best intelligent
>> designer scenario using what you can learn about nature.
> If you continue to misrepresent me, I will refuse any further
> commutations with you. Unless you alter you behavior and become more
> civil and honest in your dealings with me, this is good bye!
>>
>> Lying about the issue is simply lying, and you still don't want to
>> understand anything about nature.  The claim that IDiots were
>> interested in the science was bogus.  The scientific creationists had
>> already demonstrated that creationists did not want to deal with the
>> science. The ID perps had to change the name of what they were doing
>> because they had no creation science that they wanted to do, and they
>> never attempted to do any ID science.  Name a single testable IDiot
>> hypothesis that was ever put forward and tested.  Your claim of being
>> interested in the science should die with that realization and how you
>> can't deal with the Top Six as actual science and learn something
>> about the creation.
>
> Still slanderous wording. ie Idiot, perps
>
>
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>>
>>>> Keep going with the other Top Six and figure out why IDiots like
>>>> Glenn, Bill and Nando can't deal with them.  Glenn can't even
>>>> acknowledge that they exist as the IDiot Top Six.  You keep claiming
>>>> that you keep forgetting to have ever dealt with them each time you
>>>> put up something like the Big Bang thread for the last 3 years.  You
>>>> keep putting them up one at a time for your denial purposes, but you
>>>> never deal with the science that has already been done.  Science
>>>> that any alternative that you can think up has to deal with.  MarkE
>>>> spent a lot of time trying to define the gap in #3 (origin of
>>>> life).  It is one that you have put up before also.  MarkE figured
>>>> out that he did not want to believe in the god that fit into the gap
>>>> that he was creating under conditions on earth 3.8 billion years
>>>> ago.  You have never dealt with what is around the gap either.
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>> Don't lie about what I claim about the Top Six again and run away.
>>>> You just come back with the same stupid junk, so you might as well
>>>> deal with it now.  Deal with the existing science and build your
>>>> best IDiot alternative out of the Top Six.  The ID perps have
>>>> already told you that they are in their order of occurrence so that
>>>> should help you out.  If you don't end up with something like Denton
>>>> and Behe have already told you about, you did it wrong and have to
>>>> start over or ask for help.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Oxyaena]

Do you have a citation for that?

>>
>> [snip strawman]
>>
>> Strawman = unwelcome evidence to a brainwashed individual!
>>>
>>>  > Once you have spent some time on that task, look for information
>>> on what the theory of evolution *does* predict, what observations
>>> would be contrary to that, and what is actually observed.
>>>
>>> Theory predicts finely graded series of transitional fossils between
>>> separate species.
>>
>> And, believe it or not, we *do* find those "finely graded series of
>> transitional fossils." Every fossil we find is a transitional fossil.
>> We've got tons of them. They fill entire fucking warehouses.
> This is a lie!!

No. There has been a paleontological boom in the last twenty years,
we've discovered more fossil taxa in the last twenty years than we have
in the last 150 years. Feathered dinosaurs, primitive apemen, walking
whales, otter-like seals, the list goes on and on.

>>
>>> In the fossil record what is actually found is abrupt appearance of
>>> new species without predecessors, followed by long periods of stasis
>>> and disappearance from the record. This is typical but not always.
>>> There are exceptions to the rule: IE the Horse series and the Whale
>>> series. But one must ask is the real? How do we know the various
>>> intermediates actually left offspring. How is the link between
>>> various intermediates determined. We were not there to observe so, we
>>> are left with faith.
>>
>> Good thing we don't have to solely rely on the fossil record for
>> evidence of evolution,
> True, the evidence isn't there!

It actually is.

>> and besides, do you know how rare fossilization is?
> Okay but the fossils are not there!

Have you gone looking personally?

>> The vast majority of organisms that have ever lived died without being
>> preserved. Fossilization requires a very *specific* set of circumstances.
>>
> This is factual - fossilization is extremely rare, but that on leaves
> room for imagination which become evidence supporting evolution.

Wrong again. Life on earth has existed for four billion years. That's
more than enough time for all sorts of events to take place, including
fossilization. And lo and behold, we find the fossils.

>>>>
>>>> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would
>>>> cause you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to
>>>> design.)
>>>>
>>> My devotion is to what I observe.
>>
>> Obviously you need your eyes checked.
>>
>> [snip Gish Gallop]
> A gish gallop?  What does a galloping horse have to do with anything?
> You have nothing to offer so, why don't you a drop out!!
>
>

You really don't know what a Gish Gallop is?

[Oxyaena]

An argument from incredulity is no argument at all.

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:03:17 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your claim, still preserved in the quoted text above, is an assertion
of fact, that scientists as a group either passively ignored, or
actively rejected, evidence that stasis is evidence against ToE. You
have in the past posted similar many times.

You were asked to cite any evidence you have on which you base these
assertions, evidence of any authoritative person who claims stasis is
evidence against ToE. And you refused to do so, on your assumption
that his requires you to prove a negative.

I acknowledge that to prove a negative is an unreasonable request.
However, that is not what Mark Isaak asked you to do. Your assertions
imply you have an objective basis for them, a basis which you have
readily at hand. Mark Isaak's request is for you to identify that
basis. If in fact you had said basis, your search at most would be a
trivial exercise, to verify the details. That you now claim you would
have to search for evidence "that is in all probability not there" is
an unambiguous statement that in fact you have no evidence for your
assertions. Which means they are charitably your baseless opinions,
or cynically made up crap, either of which qualifies your assertions
as strawmen. Not sure how you don't understand this.

There's this new invention, called the Internet. It lets you look up
things. Perhaps you heard of it. You should try it sometime, if only
for the novelty of the experience.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop>

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/20/21 3:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On 1/20/21 11:18 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 1/19/21 1:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> On 1/19/21 8:57 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/2021 9:03 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When researchers labored to find evidence supporting Darwin's
>>>>> theory or searching for fossils to document evolution. Is this
>>>>> legitimate scientific methodology?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's called testing a hypothesis.
>>
>>> Not when in searching only for confirming evidence and when contrary
>>> or falsifying evidence is found ignoring it of seeing it as "no
>>> information". (adapting Gould's words to this scenario)
>>
>> Who besides you is doing this?
>
> This was done  for a century by paleontologist until the late Gould and
> Eldredge brought it to everyone's attention, When searching for
> supporting evidence for evolutionary change paleontologist saw "stasis"
> as "no evidence".- S.J. Gould
>
> Face  it, stasis or no change is exactly what paleontologist did not
> want or need, they wanted proof.

You are the one who needs to face facts. Early paleontologists saw
worms and molluscs in the early fossil record which they saw as similar,
nearly identical, to forms that are alive today. A recognition of some
stasis came even before the theory of evolution did. And evolution had
and has no problem with it. No problem at all.

>>
>>>>> What makes this non - scinetific is the fact that evidence that
>>>>> falsifies evolution is ignored, overlooked or else thrown into file
>>>>> 13.
>>>>
>>>> Such as?
>>
>>> Stasis observed in the strata for a century until Stephen J. Gould
>>> and Niles Eldredge brought it forward.
>> Can you find anything in the writings of Darwin or of any other
>> respected evolutionary biologist which says that morphological statis
>> is contrary to what the theory of evolution predicts?

> An impossible task you assigned me. In order to fulfill this request, I
> would have to read every book, magazine article of Gould and Eldredge as
> well as other respected evolutionary biologist searching for something
> that in all probability is not there.

Of course it's impossible, for the same reason that the task to find the
edge of the flat earth would be impossible. On the other hand, if your
belief reflected reality, and lack of stasis really were an important
prediction of the theory of evolution, then finding a statement of that
would be almost trivially easy.

By they way, give up already on Gould and Eldredge. I specified
*respected* evolutionary biologists. On the subject of punctuated
equilibrium, they do not qualify.

> I would venture not a single
> paleontologist searching the rocks was searching for "stasis" or no
> change over time. Quite the contrary, they were searching for finely
> graded series of fossils. I would venture to say you cannot find where
> before G & E anyone was predicting "stasis" in the fossil record. I know
> during Darwin's time salutation (stasis) was brought out by critics of
> Darwin's theory. But he was warned against his stand for gradualism and
> against saltation by his "bulldog" Huxley.
>
> > Once you have spent some time on that task, look for information on
> what the theory of evolution *does* predict, what observations would be
> contrary to that, and what is actually observed.
>
> Theory predicts finely graded series of transitional fossils between
> separate species.

Is it impossible for you to learn even the most basic facts? The theory
of evolution does *not* predict finely graded series of transitional
fossils. It predicts finely graded series of transitional forms, but
does not expect each form to be preserved. Nevertheless, some such
finely graded series of transitional fossils between separate species do
exist, so even by your own over-extreme standard, the theory of
evolution stands as confirmed.

>> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would cause
>> you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to design.)
>>
> My devotion is to what I observe.

Why did you repeat falsehoods about homeobox genes, then, even after you
were corrected?

> Can you say that evolution does not
> hold an a pirori consideration for you? If you falsify design in
> reproduction,  or show the steps in the beginning of life from dead
> matter the origin DNA or Homeobox genes or the abrupt appearance of
> highly developed organisms during the Cambrian with actual
> interconnecting links to predecessors ~ I will drop design.

If you bother to define "design" so that it means something, it has been
falsified, or at the very least it has been shown inconsistent with
every significant set of religious beliefs, including none.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:14:30 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rdhall...@gmail.com>:

>Design in nature is evidence.

No, it's an unwarranted *assumption* that you can always
recognize design, and that everything which looks like
design to you actually *is* design. It's no more valid as
evidence of design than seeing pictures in clouds is
evidence that there are giant white bunnies in the sky.

Do snow crystals "look designed" to you, with their perfect
symmetry? If so, do you think each one *is* designed?

And that's only one of myriads of "looks designed" examples,
none of which is more than the operation of known physics.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:35:52 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>

You say that, and yet you have repeatedly posted "this particular
world view" as if it's factually correct, despite being shown that
it's incorrect. Why is that?

> You can not
>_show_ me where Darwin or any the dedicated evolutionist before G & E
>advocated stasis in the fossil record.

Your own cited source, G&E, acknowledged it was paleontologists who
documented stasis in the *fossil record*. Indeed, G&E would have been
utterly ignorant of it had paleontologists not done so. So for me to
show you what you say does not exist, I need only point you to your
own copies of their publications.

I charitably assume that what you really mean is not stasis in the
*fossil record*, but instead is an actual pattern of speciation among
*living organisms*. There's a difference.

I acknowledge that prior to G&E, the pattern of stasis in the *fossil
record* was generally interpreted as an artifact of an imperfect
fossil record. In Darwin's time, the relative lack of
paleontological research would have amplified its effects, and so he
could be forgiven for relying on that consensus.

Since then, paleontology has documented a wide range of rates of
evolutionary change. Unsurprisingly, there is a strong correlation
between rates of speciation and rates of geological change, where the
fossils change in lock-step with the strata.

Punctuated Equilibrium is not evidence against ToE. Instead, it is
evidence against your strawman version of ToE. Dawkins described punk
eek as "variable speedism" and your strawman as "constant speedism".

> Of course you and others have
>_told_ me several times. But opinions don't amount to evidence.

Please write that backwards on your forehead, so you will be reminded
of it when you look in the mirror.

>> Even G&E said it. Why
>> do you persist in saying otherwise?
>
>G & E offered a new hypothesis to account for the appearance of new
>species in the fossil record and the absence of antecedents leading up
>to the the abrupt appearance of new species followed by long periods of
>"stasis". Gould offered "peripheral Isolates" as the explanation for the
>abrupt appearance in the strata. And according to him we should not
>expect to find the ancestral lines of these species. As In regards to
>stasis: according to Gould stasis was seen as "no data" or "no evidence"
>by earlier researchers. It can be said that stasis was not the evidence
>they were searching for.

Incorrect, as Gould himself proclaimed here:
<http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html>
*********************************
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups.
***********************************

You often get your panties in a bunch whenever you read "creationist",
so I make explicit here: The above does not imply you are a
creationist. Nevertheless, you post arguments similar to creationist
arguments, and so arguments disproving creationist arguments also
disprove yours.

The point to my Gould quote is that your own cited authority says
transitional forms are abundant at the level the fossil record is
capable of recording them. So to rephrase my question: Why do you
continue to impeach your own witness?

>>> In the fossil record what is actually found is abrupt
>>> appearance of new species without predecessors, followed by long periods
>>> of stasis and disappearance from the record. This is typical but not
>>> always. There are exceptions to the rule: IE the Horse series asho me w]nd the
>>> Whale series. But one must ask is the real? How do we know the various
>>> intermediates actually left offspring. How is the link between various
>>> intermediates determined. We were not there to observe so, we are left
>>> with faith.
>>>
>>>> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would cause
>>>> you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to design.)
>>>>
>>> My devotion is to what I observe.  Can you say that evolution does not
>>> hold an a pirori consideration for you? If you falsify design in
>>> reproduction,  or show the steps in the beginning of life from dead
>>> matter the origin DNA or Homeobox genes or the abrupt appearance of
>>> highly developed organisms during the Cambrian with actual
>>> interconnecting links to predecessors ~ I will drop design.

--

[Vincent Maycock]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:19:31 -0500, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>Theory predicts finely graded series of transitional fossils between
>separate species. In the fossil record what is actually found is abrupt
>appearance of new species without predecessors, followed by long periods
>of stasis and disappearance from the record. This is typical but not
>always. There are exceptions to the rule: IE the Horse series and the
>Whale series.

Do you agree that stasis, as envisioned by Gould and Eldredge only
applies at the species level?

> But one must ask is the real? How do we know the various
>intermediates actually left offspring.

Why would you believe they didn't?

> How is the link between various
>intermediates determined. We were not there to observe so, we are left
>with faith.

Do you have faith in Intelligent Design?

>> (You will do neither, of course, because the true answers would cause
>> you too much discomfort by disagreeing with your devotion to design.)
>>
>My devotion is to what I observe.  Can you say that evolution does not
>hold an a pirori consideration for you?

My devotion is to what I observe.

> If you falsify design in
>reproduction,  or show the steps in the beginning of life from dead
>matter the origin DNA or Homeobox genes or the abrupt appearance of
>highly developed organisms during the Cambrian with actual
>interconnecting links to predecessors ~

Any of those or just those? What about the following from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox

"The homeobox itself may have evolved from a non-DNA-binding
transmembrane domain at the C-terminus of the MraY enzyme. This is
based on metagenomic data acquired from the transitional archaeon,
Lokiarchaeum, that is regarded as the prokaryote closest to the
ancestor of all eukaryotes.[21][unreliable source?]

Phylogenetic analysis of homeobox gene sequences and homeodomain
protein structures suggests that the last common ancestor of plants,
fungi, and animals had at least two homeobox genes.[22] Molecular
evidence shows that some limited number of Hox genes have existed in
the Cnidaria since before the earliest true Bilatera, making these
genes pre-Paleozoic.[23] It is accepted that the three major animal
ANTP-class clusters, Hox, ParaHox, and NK (MetaHox), are the result of
segmental duplications. A first duplication created MetaHox and
ProtoHox, the latter of which later duplicated into Hox and ParaHox.
The clusters themselves were created by tandem duplications of a
single ANTP-class homeobox gene.[24] Gene duplication followed by
neofunctionalization is responsible for the many homeobox genes found
in eukaryotes.[25][26] Comparison of homeobox genes and gene clusters
has been used to understand the evolution of genome structure and body
morphology throughout metazoans.[27]"

[Glenn]

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 9:30:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:14:30 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> <rdhall...@gmail.com>:

> >Design in nature is evidence.

> No, it's an unwarranted *assumption* that you can always
> recognize design, and that everything which looks like
> design to you actually *is* design.

Strawman.

> It's no more valid as
> evidence of design than seeing pictures in clouds is
> evidence that there are giant white bunnies in the sky.

Let me know when you find this argument in ID literature, or when you post a video of rabbits frolicking in the clouds.

>
> Do snow crystals "look designed" to you, with their perfect
> symmetry? If so, do you think each one *is* designed?

Again a strawman. The information in a snowflake is not comparable to information of machines, which are not observed anywhere in nature beyond living things.

>
> And that's only one of myriads of "looks designed" examples,
> none of which is more than the operation of known physics.
> --

That you have myriads of strawmen comes as no surprise, nor does your assumption about living machines and empty appeal to physics.

"There are two perspectives on the ontological status of information in biology. The first regards information as intrinsic to the operation of living systems. If this stronger viewpoint proves correct, then life would necessarily be classified as distinct from other kinds of physical systems, as we know of no other class of physical system where information is necessary to specify its state.

There is increasingly support for the strong viewpoint, and it is well known that information must of course be instantiated in physical degrees of freedom: ‘information is physical!’ as Landauer famously proclaimed. However, there also remains much support for a second, weak viewpoint, which takes the perspective that while information is certainly a useful metaphor to describe biological systems, ultimately, all of biological complexity is, at least in principle, fully reducible to known physics."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707865/

Go for it and evidence that information in biological life is reducible to known physics.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 3:20:38 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 9:30:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:14:30 -0500, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> > <rdhall...@gmail.com>:
>
> > >Design in nature is evidence.
>
> > No, it's an unwarranted *assumption* that you can always
> > recognize design, and that everything which looks like
> > design to you actually *is* design.
> Strawman.
> > It's no more valid as
> > evidence of design than seeing pictures in clouds is
> > evidence that there are giant white bunnies in the sky.
> Let me know when you find this argument in ID literature, or when you post a video of rabbits frolicking in the clouds.

Actually, seeing pictures in clouds is evidence of design. No other process in nature is known to be able to create abstract concepts, and no known physics can explain.

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:32:35 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>> Let me know when you find this argument in ID literature, or when you post a video of rabbits frolicking in the clouds.
>Actually, seeing pictures in clouds is evidence of design. No other process in nature is known to be able to create abstract concepts, and no known physics can explain.

To quote someone whom you regard so highly, "LoL"

[Glenn]

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 4:25:37 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:32:35 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >> Let me know when you find this argument in ID literature, or when you post a video of rabbits frolicking in the clouds.
> >Actually, seeing pictures in clouds is evidence of design. No other process in nature is known to be able to create abstract concepts, and no known physics can explain.
> To quote someone whom you regard so highly, "LoL"
> --

That what your pet deer says?

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:54:14 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 4:25:37 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:32:35 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Let me know when you find this argument in ID literature, or when you post a video of rabbits frolicking in the clouds.
>> >Actually, seeing pictures in clouds is evidence of design. No other process in nature is known to be able to create abstract concepts, and no known physics can explain.
>> To quote someone whom you regard so highly, "LoL"
>> --
>That what your pet deer says?

I had no idea you highly regard deer. Do you design deer frolicking
in the clouds?