Pharyngula

When I see the name Jonathan Wells I expect Unification Church apologetics. What else could one expect?

Posted by: Les Lane | August 31, 2007 9:43 AM

Lately, I've been growing more and more convinced that there are mustache-twirling villains out there who do evil for evil's sake. They're usually defending crap like Wells via misrepresentation, flagrant lying, etcetera.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 31, 2007 11:19 AM

When we want to know if unguided Darwinian mechanisms caused fish to evolve into men (by way of amphibians, reptiles, and some unknown mammal), we're hardly enlightened by Majerus's peppered moth research. Showing (as Majerus apparently did) that Darwinian mechanisms can cause minor adaptive changes in the coloration of moths doesn't also show that those mechanisms can do the kind of major creative work needed to produce all of life's diversity and complexity. Majerus's work doesn't, for example, show that Darwinian mechanisms brought peppered moths into existence in the first place. His claim that adaptive changes in the coloration of peppered moths "prove" Darwinian evolution can be persuasive only to those who - for philosophical reasons - are already committed to the "truth" of Darwinism. Skeptics are entitled to ask for more compelling evidence.

Posted by: Jim | September 2, 2007 5:13 PM

Jim, do realize that Majerus works with moths, not hominid fossils.
Do also realize that Majerus is using moth populations to demonstrate how various traits (peppered, more peppered and black colorings) spread through populations, not how humans are descended from fish.
Do also realize that if you wish to be enlightened on human/mammalian evolution, please read books concerning human/mammalian paleontology.

Posted by: Stanton | September 2, 2007 5:34 PM

That's why Majerus's claim that his peppered moth research "proves" Darwinian evolution is utterly bogus.

The spread of adaptive variants in a population *is* Darwinian evolution, dumbass.

Posted by: windy | September 2, 2007 7:11 PM

Listen Jim, Jin or whatever your name is, ways to find the information you ask for were already suggested to you. Since you do not take friendly suggestions but continue to whine, I conclude that you might indeed be a dumbass.

As you may recall, windy, Darwin called his masterpiece "The Origin of Species," not "The Spread of Adaptive Variants in a Population." Darwinism purports to explain much more than the spread of adaptive variants.

Do you think it's possible that a theory might concern both small events and large events? And when you start explaining something, you might want to look at the small stuff first?

But maybe you are right, it's quite a leap of faith. Sort of like saying that rolling metal balls on an inclined plane is a step to explaining how the planets move! Wouldn't that be silly?

Posted by: windy | September 2, 2007 9:29 PM

Stanton: "Jim, you're an idiot." And (with no trace of irony): "If you weren't so arrogantly moronic..."

I wonder what it is about Darwinism that causes its proponents - with few exceptions, in my experience - to arrogantly turn to namecalling, ridicule, and condescension in defending their beloved theory. Such argumentation is the refuge of those who have few (if any) good arguments (unless, of course, they're simply insufferable asses who are incapable of respecting those who hold opinions different from theirs). It's annoying that Darwinists resort to such childish argumentation with such regularity, but I don't discourage it. If they want to advertise the bankruptcy of their position, who am I to stop them?

In any event, I quite agree that Majerus's research - to the extent that it proved anything - simply proved that Darwinian mechanisms are capable of producing microevolution (or minor adaptive changes). But his claim was that he had proved "evolution," by which he obviously meant Darwin's theory (in its modern form). My criticism was to the effect that proving the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to produce microevolution (which is accepted by virtually everyone, including creationists and ID theorists) does not prove the more grandiose macroevolutionary claims of Darwinists - such as the claim that Darwinian mechanisms caused men to evolve from fish. Thus Majerus's claim was grossly overblown.

It should also be noted that even if it's true that the fossil record shows a clear evolutionary history leading from fish to men (a debatable point), the fossils (like gene comparisons) are entirely silent on the mechanism(s) of evolution. It may surprise you to learn that ID theorists don't dispute that evolution (understood as biological change over time, or as common descent, or as descent with modification) has occurred. They instead take issue with the claim that Darwinian mechanisms (primarily random mutations and natural selection) suffice to account for ALL of life's diversity and complexity.

With regard to my stupidity, let the record show that I'm a summa cum laude graduate in civil engineering and a lapsed member of Mensa with an IQ to the north of 150. I'm widely read in both evolutionary theory and ID theory. I've found Darwinism to be a satisfactory explanation for microevolution, but an inadequate explanation for macroevolution (i.e., the emergence of biological novelty in the form of new organs, new organisms, new biological systems, etc.). There's no chance that Darwinists will persuade me that I'm wrong by calling me stupid, although they do tell me a lot about the kind of persons they are.

Posted by: Jim | September 3, 2007 9:17 AM

Really, if there is no evidence for macroevolution as you insist, then how do you explain the appearance of the Honeysuckle Maggot fly, Rhagoletis mendax × zephyria, the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestans, or the Giant Evening Primrose, Oenothera gigas, species that have been documented as appearing within the last 300 years? How do you explain the hundreds upon hundreds of documented fossil lineages, including the brontotheres, from Eotitanops to Megalocerops, the Pontian Sea cockels from the Miocene, or even the lineage of Eusthenopteron to Panderichthys to Tiktaalik to Acanthostega to Ichthyostega?

Posted by: Stanton | September 3, 2007 11:57 AM

...does not prove the more grandiose macroevolutionary claims of Darwinists - such as the claim that Darwinian mechanisms caused men to evolve from fish. Thus Majerus's claim was grossly overblown.

Nonsense. Obviously he meant it was a proof of evolution among countless others, not the proof of evolution. If you think Majerus offers moths as the only necessary proof of evolution, I agree with Stanton that you are not nearly as well-read in the subject as you think.

They instead take issue with the claim that Darwinian mechanisms (primarily random mutations and natural selection) suffice to account for ALL of life's diversity and complexity.

So the answer is to make the system even more complex by assuming a designer? How do you propose to account for the designer's existence?

I've found Darwinism to be a satisfactory explanation for microevolution, but an inadequate explanation for macroevolution (i.e., the emergence of biological novelty in the form of new organs, new organisms, new biological systems, etc.)

Do you think the emergence of humans from earlier apes required a designer? No new organs or biological systems there.

Posted by: windy | September 3, 2007 12:39 PM

Henry Gee (chief science writer for Nature, and an evolutionist) may have aptly observed: "The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection though ancestry and descent....To take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story..."

However, you have also failed to prove that you are the same species as either of your grandmothers, unless one of them conceived a child by you. That may be another kind of bedtime story... but not trivial": how do you prove that we are the same species as a Cromagnon 5,000 years ago? That is, in terms of the species definition of ability to sexually reproduce without absolute barrier. We make a chain of inferences, and accept that we are the same species as our parents, grandparents, and so for n generations for some large value of n.

Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | September 3, 2007 1:04 PM

That was a figure of speech, Jim, not a claim that Majerus didn't use the definite article. Did you also notice "ONE of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of evolution in action?" But don't take my word for it, email Majerus and ask him if he meant moths prove man-to-fish evolution.

ID theory is about the detection of actual (or intelligent) design in biological systems;

How's that working out for them?

there is no inferential trail from the detection of design to the identity of the designer.

Why not?

Posted by: windy | September 3, 2007 1:34 PM

Jim, if the only reasons why you dismiss macroevolution is the miscontruing of an entomologist's figure of speech AND the infinitesimally idiotic creationist's stalking horse of "there is no mechanism for macroevolution," I stand firm in my calling you an idiot.
In fact, I'm wondering whether or not MENSA's standards have been deteriorating.
You also didn't respond to my examples of various species that appeared within the last 300 years, either.

Posted by: Stanton | September 3, 2007 6:00 PM

Actually, my mother taught me to always assume that Creationists and IDiots are going to give me bullshit in place of facts, and that people who bullshit me are undeserving of any courtesy.
I've also been taught to be extremely suspicious of the quotes Creationists and ID supporters whip out, as both are infamously notorious for quote-mining.
And as such, your quote-mining does not convince me. Would it be at all possible if you can explain to me, in detail and in your own words, why I should disregard the extreme anatomical similarities and geological placement of brontothere fossils that suggest that the dog-sized Eotitanops is the ancestor of the elephant-sized Brontotherium? Certainly, such a request would not be beyond the capability of a MENSA-caliber intellect, right?
Also, please explain why, if there is no traceable mechanism for macroevolution, scientists have been able to recreate the Honeysuckle Maggot Fly in the laboratory by breeding its parent species, the Snowberry and Blueberry Maggot Flies, as well as the Western Sunflower, Helianthus anomalus by breeding its parent species H. annuus and H. petiolaris? Why, then, are we able to deduce that the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestans is descended from the European Mosquito, Culex pipiens?
Why was it that Hugo De Vries was able to observe the sudden appearance of the Giant Evening Primrose Oenothera gigas in a patch of Lamarck's Evening Primroses, O. lamarckiana, one spring, and why were we able to determine that O. gigas' genome was doubled that of O. lamarckiana?
If there is no traceable mechanism for macroevolution, then why have we been able to determine that bread wheat is a polyploid hybrid of at least 6 different wild wheats? Why are we able to determine that domesticated strawberries are octoploid mutants of wild European strawberries?
Furthermore, how do you explain the existence of ring species complexes? According to your logic, do the California Ensatina salamanders don't exist?
I've also noticed that you've never proposed how macroevolution can not occur. Do realize that biologists state that macroevolution occurs through the accumulation of multiple traits in individuals of a population with each passing generation until the current population X is different enough from the original parent population E that the two populations are considered two distinct species. Creationists have long alleged that this can not occur because there is a barrier that prevents this from happening. However, creationists have never ever elucidated what this barrier is, thus enabling them to dismiss whatever contrary evidence is brought before them, just like what you're doing now.
There has been one time when creationists tried to define a mechanism, that would be Intelligent Design. However, it's been shot full with so many holes that it makes a rotting fishnet look solid by comparison. Every single example of "intelligently designed systems" that Michael Behe used have been so thoroughly debunked that they've been demolished. Go google "Cilia Evolution," or "Immunoglobin Evolution" and see what turns up.
Do realize that Intelligent Design Theory is not a scientific theory and that its proponents are routinely derided by actual scientists because Intelligent Design proponents A) do not do science, B) have absolutely no interest or motivation in explaining absolutely anything with or about the mechanisms of Intelligent Design, C) do not do science, D) have an agenda that literally calls for the destruction of this country's educational system, and most importantly, E) do not do science.

That, and you still have not demonstrated or explained the logic of how an entomologist's hyperbole can be used to falsify the literal hundreds of libraries' worth of tetrapod fossils.

Posted by: Stanton | September 3, 2007 9:33 PM

Stanton: "Actually, my mother taught me to always assume that Creationists and IDiots are going to give me bullshit in place of facts, and that people who bullshit me are undeserving of any courtesy."

Well, if you say your mother taught you to behave like an ass, I won't dispute it. The evidence seems to confirm it.

Stanton: "Would it be at all possible if you can explain to me, in detail and in your own words, why I should disregard the extreme anatomical similarities and geological placement of brontothere fossils that suggest that the dog-sized Eotitanops is the ancestor of the elephant-sized Brontotherium?"

I should think you could figure it out for yourself. Anatomical similarities suggest ancestor/descendant relationships, but they don't confirm them. They certainly don't confirm that the presumed evolution was caused by Darwinian mechanisms (principally, random mutations and natural selection).

Stanton: "please explain why, if there is no traceable mechanism for macroevolution, scientists have been able to recreate the Honeysuckle Maggot Fly in the laboratory by breeding its parent species, the Snowberry and Blueberry Maggot Flies, as well as the Western Sunflower, Helianthus anomalus by breeding its parent species H. annuus and H. petiolaris? Why, then, are we able to deduce that the London Underground Mosquito, Culex molestans is descended from the European Mosquito, Culex pipiens?"

The ability of Darwinian mechanisms to produce new flies from old flies and new mosquitos from old mosquitos is not in dispute. Evolution of that kind might satisfy the arbitrary definition of speciation as the development of
reproductive isolation, but observing it hardly confirms that Darwinian mechanisms caused men to evolve from fish. Neither does it confirm that the mechanisms causing Culex molestans to evolve from Culex pipiens have the ability to cause Culex whatever to evolve into, say, hummingbirds (by way of however many intermediate, transitional forms might be required).

Stanton: "Every single example of 'intelligently designed systems' that Michael Behe used have been so thoroughly debunked that they've been demolished."

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity has been disputed by Darwinists, but it doesn't follow that his concept has been "thoroughly debunked." Kenneth Miller, for example, claims that he's debunked Behe, but he does it by changing the meaning of irreducible complexity. He does a nice job of debunking the straw man he made of Behe's concept, but no sensible person should be persuaded by such intellectual sleight-of-hand. I've read a number of exchanges between Behe and his critics, and I think Behe gets the better end of those exchanges.

Stanton: "Do realize that Intelligent Design Theory is not a scientific theory and that its proponents are routinely derided by actual scientists because Intelligent Design proponents A) do not do science, B) have absolutely no interest or motivation in explaining absolutely anything with or about the mechanisms of Intelligent Design, C) do not do science, D) have an agenda that literally calls for the destruction of this country's educational system, and most importantly, E) do not do science."

Yep. I've heard all of that many times. But having read some two dozen books and numerous essays by design theorists, I know that it's mostly hyperbolic, paranoid nonsense.

Stanton: "That, and you still have not demonstrated or explained the logic of how an entomologist's hyperbole can be used to falsify the literal hundreds of libraries' worth of tetrapod fossils."

Majerus claimed that he had proven evolution, meaning that his peppered moth research proved that Darwinian mechanisms account for all of life's diversity and complexity. I've neither claimed nor suggested that his hyperbolic claim falsifies the tetrapod fossils (whatever that means). The fossil record, whose most prominent features are (as noted by Stephen Jay Gould) stasis (meaning that species show no directional change during their tenure on earth) and sudden appearance (meaning that species appear in the fossil record all at once and fully formed, with no evidence of gradual transformation from precursor species)
argues against the Darwinian tale of macroevolution proceeding by way of the gradual accumulation of a lot of microevolution more readily than it argues for it.

Posted by: Jim | September 3, 2007 10:45 PM

So, it is beyond your MENSA-caliber intellect to explain why you insist that brontothere fossils do not suggest that Eotitanops evolved into Brontotherium.
Then again, it is painfully obvious that you know crap about biology or paleontology. If "Darwinian Mechanisms" can not account for the diversity of life, then what does?
Do you honestly expect us to abandon a theory without replacing it with a superior theory simply because you, yourself, are incapable of wrapping your brain around it?
Can you show us examples of Intelligent Design Theory in action? The Discovery Institute has not.

Posted by: Stanton | September 3, 2007 10:56 PM

Sorry, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want to criticize ID without bothering to learn anything about it (aside from the gross distortions of ID peddled by the likes of PZ Myers), that's your business.

Projecting like a Cineplex.

You have to ante up before you can play the game.

Here's the ante.

-Define "irreducible complexity" in objective terms.
-Produce a metric that can measure it.

After that, we can play.

Posted by: Graculus | September 3, 2007 11:16 PM

Anyone else notice how Jim, with his MENSA-caliber intellect, has not bothered to demonstrate any scientific experiments done to further the study of Intelligent Design?
Then again, it may be far too much to ask of him, given as how the Discovery Institute has been wholly incapable of doing so, either, and that Jim is incapable of explaining why brontothere fossils do not suggest Eotitanops evolving into Brontotherium despite extreme anatomical similarities between the two genera, and between all of the rest of the genera in that family.

Posted by: Stanton | September 4, 2007 12:04 AM

Graculus: "Define 'irreducible complexity' in objective terms."

Since biochemist Michael Behe developed the concept, I'll let him define it: "By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Graculus: "Produce a metric that can measure it."

OK. The irreducible complexity of a biological system can be assessed by performing knock-out experiments. For example, Scott Minnich (a Univ. of Idaho microbiologist whose research is centered on the genetics of flagellar biosynthesis, on type III protein secretion in Gram-negative pathogens, and on novel strategies for vaccine production) performed knock-out experiments that demonstrated the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum.

Stanton: "So, it is beyond your MENSA-caliber intellect to explain why you insist that brontothere fossils do not suggest that Eotitanops evolved into Brontotherium."

Apparently you failed to notice that I've already agreed that the fossils can suggest ancestor/descendant relationships. But the fossils don't confirm those relationships. Indeed, the relationships are largely "established" by assuming the truth of Darwinian evolution, yet that's the very thing that needs to be validated. Zoologist Gareth Nelson (American Museum of Natural History) candidly described the identification of "ancestors" in this way: "We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating."
Obviously, labeling ancestors simply because Darwinian theory needs ancestors does nothing to confirm the theory. Such circularity in reasoning can't confirm anything.

Stanton: "If 'Darwinian Mechanisms' can not account for the diversity of life, then what does?"

That's an open question. I don't have the answer, but then, neither does anyone else. Unlike Darwinists, however, I don't dogmatically insist that Darwinism has solved life's mysteries, case closed. Call me naive, but I still cling to the idea that science is (or at least, it ought to be) a self-correcting epistemic enterprise. As forums like this one demonstrate beyond dispute, the last thing the proponents of Darwinism want is any corrective influences exerted by alternative theories, such as ID theory. The dogmatic condition of mainstream evolutionary biology is a sorry spectacle, but blogs like Pharyngula - which put that dogmatism on display - give me hope that the situation will change. Dogmatism exposed may lead to dogmatism defeated. That's an outcome that anyone who values the integrity of science out to desire.

Rey: "In real science, were we to find indisputable evidence of design, the next question would have to be who or what the designer is."

It may surprise you to learn that ID theorists agree with you on this point (so do I). They don't, however, think that science, relying on biological data, can provide the answer. They regard the question as one that belongs to philosophers and theologians. (By the way, "Who was the designer?" may not be "the next question." Another question that quickly follows the detection of design is "How was this design actualized?" That may be a question that ID tackles in the future, but for now it's focused on showing in a scientifically rigorous way that the apparent design of many biological systems is not merely apparent, rather it's actual.)

Rey: "So if we've apparently already reached the conclusion, then why would we even bother to 'develop the mathematical, logical, and scientific tools for detecting design in the biosphere? Cart before the horse. At least, unless we see some positive data for design, rather than the usual potshots at evolution."

If you'd like to acquaint yourself with the mathematical, logical, and evidentiary bases for detecting design, I suggest that you read design theorist Wm. Dembski's "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence." Alternatively, you could rely on the persistent misrepresentations of ID peddled by the likes of PZ Myers and never understand ID.

Rey: "Evolutionary change takes place on geologic time scales. The onus is still on you to tell us where the boundary is, beyond which an organism's genome cannot change."

If your interest in this is sincere, I suggest that you read Michael Behe's latest book, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism."

Windy: "First, Margulis is wrong and speciation has been observed."

Actually, except for speciation among some flowering plants produced by polyploidy (which is not what Darwinian theory needs), she's right. The alleged instances of "observed" speciation (such as those mentioned by Stanton) are actually analyses of already existing (or newly discovered) species used to defend the Darwinian hypothesis of how speciation occurs. For example, no one has actually observed speciation occurring among Darwin's finches, but there's an inferential trail suggesting that they evolved from an original ancestor from the mainland of Africa. Nonetheless, it ought to be clear that analyzing existing species to test a hypothesis is a far cry from actually observing speciation.

Jim: "Majerus claimed that he had proven evolution, meaning that his peppered moth research proved that Darwinian mechanisms account for all of life's diversity and complexity."
Windy (with typical cordiality): "You are still the only one making this dumbass strawman inference."

If Majerus meant that his research confirmed the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to produce microevolution (or minor adaptive changes), he should have said so. Instead, he said that his research provided THE proof of EVOLUTION. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the subject knows that when the word "evolution" is used in that way, it's intended to mean Darwinian evolutionary theory, which purports to provide the complete explanation for life's diversity and complexity.

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2007 10:17 AM

Nonetheless, it ought to be clear that analyzing existing species to test a hypothesis is a far cry from actually observing speciation.

Nonetheless, it ought to be clear that analyzing existing species to test a "hypothesis" is a far cry from actually observing intelligent design.

Why is it all right for ID to rely on inferences when it demands that science doesn't?

Let me also ask again:

Since there are no new major organs or biological systems found in man that are not found in living or fossil fish, shouldn't intelligent design "theory" be silent on whether men evolved from fish? Or how does ID explain fish-to-man evolution?

Posted by: windy | September 4, 2007 10:34 AM

Jim, with his MENSA caliber intellect, fails to note that the experiments with knock-out Gram-negative bacteria actually produced fully motile bacteria that had only half of their flagellar protein genes functioning.
According to Behe's hypothesis, if there was so much as one flagellar protein gene non-functioning, the bacteria would be completely non-motile.
This goes back to my observation that all of Behe's examples have been shot full of holes.

Posted by: Stanton | September 4, 2007 10:45 AM

Windy: "Why is it all right for ID to rely on inferences when it demands that science doesn't?"

If you were actually familiar with the positions taken by ID theorists, you'd know that they don't "demand" that science shun inferences. Indeed, they contend that in a historical science like evolutionary biology, inferences to the best explanations are all that science can deliver.

Windy: "Since there are no new major organs or biological systems found in man that are not found in living or fossil fish, shouldn't intelligent design 'theory' be silent on whether men evolved from fish?"

ID theory is silent on that question. Since the theory (unlike Darwinism) doesn't need the hypothesis that men evolved from fish, it has nothing to say about it.

Windy: "Or how does ID explain fish-to-man evolution?"

ID makes no attempt to offer that explanation. Its focus is entirely on the question of whether certain biological systems, structures, processes, etc. can be attributed in a scientifically rigorous way to design. If all you know about ID is what you've learned from the likes of PZ Myers or Barbara Forest or Judge Jones, then you likely don't know that ID theory is quite compatible with Darwin's idea of descent with modification. ID theorists take issue with the notion that Darwinian mechanisms suffice to explain all of life's diversity and complexity; they don't dispute that biological change (or evolution) has occurred.

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2007 10:59 AM

Stanton: "Jim...fails to note that the experiments with knock-out Gram-negative bacteria actually produced fully motile bacteria that had only half of their flagellar protein genes functioning."

I googled that and failed to come up with the experiments you cited. Do you have a reference for them?

Stanton: "According to Behe's hypothesis, if there was so much as one flagellar protein gene non-functioning, the bacteria would be completely non-motile."

Which is precisely what microbiologist Scott Minnich's knock-out experiments with bacterial flagella demonstrated (see his testimony at the Dover trial).

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2007 11:18 AM

Jim: "...the last thing the proponents of Darwinism want is any corrective influences exerted by alternative theories, such as ID theory."
Windy: "try
-endosymbiosis theory
-neutral theory
-punctuated equilibrium"

OK. I overstated my case. Proponents of Darwinism will tolerate the corrective influence of some theories, just so long as those theories don't challenge the underlying assumption that unintelligent material causes fully account for life's origin and development.

Windy: "Why have you been ragging on the 'men from fish' example, then?"

If you'd been paying attention, you could answer this question for yourself. I introduced the "men from fish" hypothesis in my very first posting on this thread because it exposes Majerus's unwarranted claim that his peppered moth research provides THE proof of EVOLUTION, by which he obviously meant Darwinian theory, which (among other things) contends that Darwinian mechanisms caused men to evolve from fish. As I said at the outset, if we want to know if unguided Darwinian mechanisms caused men to evolve from fish, we're not enlightened by Majerus's peppered moth research.

Stanton: "...why is it that no Intelligent Design proponent has been able to perform a single, verifiable experiment with Intelligent Design Theory?"

Without conceding the merits of the assertion in your question, let me turn the question around: What verifiable experiments have Darwinists conducted to confirm their macroevolutionary claims? For example, what repeatable, verifiable experiments have they conducted that demonstrate that Darwinian mechanisms caused men to evolve from fish?

Stanton: "why is it that the Bio-tech industry still subscribes to (Evolutionary Theory)?"

Beats me. It's of no use to them. As Harvard biologist Marc Kirschner said in an interview with the Boston Globe: "Over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself." Kirschner laments the general uselessness of Darwinism to biological research, but he doesn't deny it. As he further stated: "Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
Chemist Philip Skell (member, National Academy of Sciences) wrote in The Scientist that his "own research with antibiotics during WWII received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution." In his essay, he also wrote that he had "recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought that Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: NO." With respect to a review he had made of the major biological discoveries of the 20th century, he concluded: "I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2007 11:59 AM

Graculus: "A pile of rocks is irreducibly 'complex' by this definition."

No, it's not. A pile of rocks may be complex (depending on the number of rocks), but what function does it perform? And if any one of those rocks is removed, would the pile of rocks cease to perform that function?

Graculus: "What *objective* measure does Behe use to to differentiate between a system of 'interlocking complexity' that has arisen through evolutionaty proceses and one that is the work of a designer?"

I imagine he'd say that "interlocking complexity" and "irreducible complexity" are not the same thing. He'd likely also say that no one actually knows that "interlocking complexity" arose through unguided evolutionary processes. But if you really want to know what he would say, why don't you read his books? I can't begin to do justice to his arguments in short postings to a talk forum. The recurrent request of ID foes that I educate them on ID is one of the things that frustrates me about "debates" like this one. Quite typically, I'm the only one in the debate who has actually read the works of ID theorists. While all participants in the debate have likely received an education (or an indoctrination) in Darwinian theory, and while many of them (like me) may have independently studied Darwinian theory, few of them have bothered to study ID theory as elucidated by ID theorists. That's why I say I'm not going to do your homework for you. I can't type fast enough to fill in any gaps in your knowledge of ID.

Graculus: "...are you claiming that species don't have ancestors?"

No, but I am arguing that the identification of ancestor/descendant relationships is so plagued by inconsistencies, contradictions, and missing links that claims about such relationships can't be taken as unassailable statements of reality.

Graculus: "That each one was created ex nihilo at all different times?"

Ex nihilo creation is a position taken by creationist, not ID theorists (it really would be helpful if you'd actually learn something about ID). At its core, ID theory is about the arrangement of already-existing matter in biological systems and about what kind of causes (intelligent or unintelligent) suffice to generate the complex specified information that shapes matter into biological systems.

Graculus: "What predictions does Behe make that are not exactly the same as predictions made without his assumption of design?"

Like all design theorists, Behe doesn't assume design. His argument (like theirs) is that analysis of biological systems often leads to design as the best explanation of those systems. If you want to understand how they arrive at design inferences, read their books.

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2007 12:34 PM

Rey: "If the designer interacts with the material world in an observable way, then the designer is part of the material world and is therefore subject to scientific study."

True enough, but ID theory doesn't contend that "the designer interacts with the material world in an observable way." The theory instead argues that if a designing intelligence has acted in life's history, then the effects (or designs) produced by that designing intelligence are amenable to scientific investigation. Biological data, ID theorists argue, often lead to design inferences, but the data don't reveal the identity of the designer. Because so many ID critics erroneously conflate it with creationism, they tend to think of it as intelligent designER theory, when in fact, it's simply intelligent design theory.

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2007 12:53 PM

Stanton: "Why is it that you are wholly unable to answer my simple request to show us an example of a scientific experiment done to further the study of Intelligent Design?"

I've already done that. Scott Minnich's knockout experiments with bacterial flagella were done within the rubric of ID to demonstrate a core concept of the theory: irreducible complexity. If you want to learn more about design-theoretic research, go to:

http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2007 1:01 PM

Kseniya: "Now, Jim, you're a smart fellah, but THAT is idiotic. Or disingenous. Which is it?"

I'm no longer going to respond to posters who call me an idiot, a moron, a dumbass, etc - which likely means this will be my last submission to the forum. People who write in that way don't deserve the courtesy of a reply.

Posted by: Jim | September 4, 2007 2:17 PM