Glen Davidson: and the non-rationally produced (fitting non-teleological evolutionary predictions almost down to every last detail) complexity found in living organisms.

(emphasis mine)Could you give me a few examples of those? I realize this is off-topic; if you have a link/cite that supports, especially, the ‘non-telic’ aspect of the prediction(s), I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

Well I tried to put in a bunch of links previously, but for whatever reason it didn’t work. I’ll try once more.

First, I’ll point out that all of evolutionary theory’s predictions are “non-telic”. One of my favorites is that evolution predicts that vertebrate wings have to come from previous structures suited to modification into wings, which in practical terms means legs. Hence, all three vertebrate wings which evolved are modified forelimbs of their previous ancestors, and, of course, none at all consist of designs taken from unrelated organisms. This example crops up in some of the following links.

Here’s one in which I really listed a lot of the lack of expected “design” features in life:

behefails.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/the-edge-of-evolution/#A

In the following, I discussed both the overlap, and where overlap is lacking, between what intelligence can do, and what evolution, does:

behefails.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/why-is-there-substantial-overlap-between-design-results-and-evolutionary-results/

Below is a discussion of how evolution explains “poor design” through its constraints, which is to say, that it has no ability to act rationally, unlike known intelligence:

behefails.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/ids-problem-is-not-particularly-poor-design-but-the-evident-cause-of-poor-design/

Next is a link discussing what Behe rightly states is a way of distinguishing design from non-teleological evolution. Why he brought up the fact that accepted evolutionary theory allows for only “physical precursors,” while design would be expected to have “conceptual precursors,” I’ll never know, because life is precisely lacking in the latter, and made up of the former. Here’s the link:

behefails.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/darwins-black-box/#5

And for just a general link where these things are discussed, in addition to other factors, see here:

behefails.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/darwins-black-box/

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Do you believe it because your read about it and do not want to go against the norm or is there good research leading to the conclusion that evolution is real.

The research supporting evolution is not good, it is overwhelming. That is why essentially every scientist on the planet accepts it.

I just have not found solid proof. I mentioned Lucy because ever since australopithecines was proven primate, evolutionist have been looking for something else and found Lucy.

I have no idea what this even means. Of course Australopithecus is a primate, we are primates too. That is not a surprise. Humans are primates, chimpanzees are primates, the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees were primates, and all the transitional forms in between that species and humans were primates.

Things like “her” being found from 200ft to one mile of the skull.

This is flat-out wrong. Lucy was found in a small area. However, several other fossils of the same species were found further away, which appears to have confused some creationists (and others don’t seem to bother to check). Lucy was merely the most complete fossil found at the site. Other fossils of the same species have been found at other sites as well.

But the angles of the upper leg and lower leg are 15 degrees which is the same as…dramatic pause, australopithecines.

Really? That is good considering Lucy was an Australopithecus, specifically Australopithecus afarensis.

The worst part of this story is that when Dr. Johnson presented his findings in Kansas City in 1987 not a single evolutionist questioned him.

Maybe that is because he had found the fossils in the 70′s and presented his findings around then. He even wrote a book on it in 1981. The discussions were long over and Lucy’s status as a member of the human family was well-established. If they were using the sorts of lies and misconceptions you are using I could imagine him getting upset.

Honestly, I am trying to pursue the truth. I do not believe in evolution because the argument does not seem to hold up under questioning. Creation works because the validity of the Bible is solid, proven and has held up to questioning for years.

No, evolution has held up over the most stringent questions over the last 150 years. It is the most well-supported scientific theory ever. Creationism is known to be totally and utterly wrong, conflicting not only with what we know about evolution but also conflicting with absolutely everything else we know about the universe.

I suggest you read this to get a very small overview of the massive amount of evidence supporting evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

In my experience, folks get mad when they defend something they are uncomfortable challenging.

Folks get mad when debating creationists because it generally doesn’t matter how good evidence is. It’s exasperation, not discomfort. For instance, we now have thousands of separate fossils that detail the transition from a chimp-like ancestor to modern hominins. Sure there are still gaps, but over time they’re getting filled in, just as evolution would predict.

The fact that some scientific giants you point to believed in god (not all of those you listed as believing in god actually did) is irrelevant. Just like it’s not relevant whether or not my car mechanic believes in god. It’s not a contest.

I do not believe in evolution because the argument does not seem to hold up under questioning.

What specifically don’t you think holds up?

Creation works because the validity of the Bible is solid, proven and has held up to questioning for years

No it doesn’t. And due to it’s internal inconstancies, we don’t even need to look outside the Bible to know this.

I think your list of “believers” is inaccurate too. In particular Einstein. He wasn’t a believer and he said, “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Some of the others may or may not have been believers either and if you got Einstein’s belief wrong who knows what else you got wrong. Who cares if a scientist is religious anyway. Being a good scientist has nothing to do with believing in god or not.

Frankly mate, I think you’re making stuff up. A few citations to back up your claims would be appreciated.

I am always open to evidence and I ignore folks that follow the normal get mad, call names play book. In my experience, folks get mad when they defend something they are uncomfortable challenging. I am open to challenges to God and creation. bring it! I want to know also. Believers have made some of the biggest contributions to science. Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, Faraday, Copernicus, Maxwell, Heisenburg, Harvey, Brahe, Plank, etc. All believers in God.

Evolutionist have folks like; Laplace, Hawking, Mayr, Kinsey, Skinner, Wundt. Compare the accomplishments. Kids in school read about the accomplishments of scientist whose base was a belief in God to advance science. Then they turn the page and read about evolution. Doesn’t that seem odd to anyone or is it just me? That seems like reading about the study of automotive history then turn the page and read about teleportation. Honestly, I am trying to pursue the truth. I do not believe in evolution because the argument does not seem to hold up under questioning. Creation works because the validity of the Bible is solid, proven and has held up to questioning for years.

Then why write anything? Seems a bit smart alecky to me.

“Dance, Monkey, Dance”. Sorry Phil, but you got trolled by Adams himself, and you bit.

I can remember when CFC’s were safe, Global warming was a fringe theory, and the universe was either expanding, contracting or ‘continuously created’.
So the man can be forgiven for assuming that what we ‘know’ today will be completly wrong tommorrow.

This is just another example of how the DI have created the public perception of being a ‘persecuted underdog’ while at the same time claiming to be representative of the majority viewpoint.

Orbited for many years then deliberatley fell into and became part of is what I meant!

Wonder if Galileo’s vapourised mortal remains have reached the diamond at the heart of the Jovian core yet? (The spacecraft not the Renaissance hero that is.)

PS. Yes, I know I’m getting my science from SpaceOdyssey : 2010′ & Arthur C. Clarke’s fiction – there probably ain’t really a diamond down there although ..

It is like using Galileo’s writings to prove we really don’t know anything about the moons of Jupiter. He didn’t know anything about the moons, but we have learned a bit since then.

Galileo? What you mean the spaceprobe that flew by in the 1990′s-00s?

I thought that did actually tell us a lot about the Jovian moons?

Oh and isn’t a ship (and by extension spaceprobe) usually a ‘she’ not a ‘he’ by tradition?

“Oh yes. It’s funny the way they make that rascal Pontius Pilate into a tragic hero. And in a brief pause from turning Jesus into hamburger, .. ”

Wow! They turn Jesus into a hamburger! Neat!

Does the Virginmray’s face appear on hisgrilled cheese or top of the bun? How does he get out of that one? Does somebody eat Him? If so it’d taste nicer than wafers wouldn’t it? And who applies the Chainsaw to Pilate?

Yeah from the sounds of it, quite a good satire – maybe equal to ‘Dogma’ with Jesus’ black brother and God on life support needing his plug pulled! Although surely not as good as Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’. Nothing can be as good as ‘Life of Brian’ can it? Hmm.. Jose, I think might actually
*want* to see that ‘Texas Jesus massacre’ one now! You’ve sold me on it. Which shelf do I look for it in the video shop – comedy? B-grade horror? Remainders?

“there’s the hilarious flashback scene where Jesus invents the modern dining table and chair set, and his mother Mary walks away waiving her hands in them air and says something like “This will never catch on.” If you haven’t seen the movie, I’m not making that up. That is an actual scene meant to serve as a bit of comic relief.”

Ha ha.. hurrr ..

I thought the whole thing was meant to be a comedy though yeah?

Thinking of which & some of the comments – is it worth posing the question :

Are we all losing our sense of humour here?

Laughing at woo, saying “Ridikulous” to the Boggle is probably one of the best strategies us reality-based folks have. Don’t know if that’s what Scott Adams is up to ..

.. Just thought we could look at taking things a little less than plain dead earnest, or zealous over-reaction? Not that the Creationism-IDiots are really all that funny but, hey, better to laugh than cry yes?

And do the words ‘Poes law’ and something about satire /parody / reality being indistinguishable ring any bells?

Thanks for the link. I wish the review had a little more specifics about what’s wrong with the book. Adams’ response reminds me of fundamentalist preachers and their ‘arguments’ – he’s certainly not good at expressing ideas (or making valid arguments). Incidentally, Adams’ response was a textbook case of how not to reason and Steven Novella had posted something on that recently:

http://skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/

I’ll have to dig up my ‘Dilbert Future’ – I really can’t remember the last chapter but I wouldn’t be surprised if it put me off and I threw the book aside and forgot about it. I wonder who wrote in to praise that ‘last chapter’ – perhaps the ghost of George McReady Price?

“You know like Lucy”

What about her? It is an excellent, very complete speciimen of a transitional fossil.

“Entropy”

Ah yes, the only “evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics” canard. Do me a favor, Jim. Go outside on a clear day. See that big, yellow, glowing ball up there? That’s the sun. It means Earth is not a closed system, and thus entropy (which is NOT the same thing as disorder) can and does increase.

Anybody who uses this argument instantly shows two things. One, they know absolutely nothing about science. This is some of the most basic stuff out there. Two, they can’t use common sense (if entropy can’t increase, how do crystals form?). Three, they have not bothered to spend even one second reading non-creationist material, since that is invariably the first thing that comes up because it is such a silly argument but such a common argument.

“Mutation”

Have to be a bit more specific here.

“Macroevolution”

…has been directly observed. Moving on.

“lack of the millions of transitional fossils (Darwin’s words)”

You do realize Darwin lived a century and a half ago, right? We have made more than a little bit of progress in paleontology since then. Quoting anybody from that long ago as though it had any weight regarding the current state of the evidence is stretching it just a bit. It is like using Galileo’s writings to prove we really don’t know anything about the moons of Jupiter. He didn’t know anything about the moons, but we have learned a bit since then.

“Sometimes, I think this site should be called Phil’s Chariots of the Gods. I miss good science.”

That’s because you haven’t bothered looking at any.

@ Alex Black: See, this is exactly what I am talking about.

The problem is, that is what real creationists and IDers do as well. So how are we supposed to tell the difference between a real creationist and a fake one? The answer: we can’t. Heck, even the creationists themselves can’t seem to tell.

Not a hobby, and not unique to PZ’s people. Sadly, No! and a bunch of others do the same thing. Some people are proud of their opinion and seek confirmation in the company of others. That’s fallacious: it’s the Appeal to Popularity. We’re not automatically superior to others just because we have expertise in one field or know someone who is and vicariously gain wht we think is authority. And while you have describe maybe ten people, the rest – the hundreds who post, “Ditto!” style – are just thrilled with hasty opinions based on unfounded optimism, while the exact same mechanism that put us in our current political and economic mess is still operating.

“Regulars” are never a problem. Ideas are, and they do not become more or less ludicrous because of the identity of their advocate or the company they keep.

And, I’ll put two bucks on the fact that Dave Hall shows up again in less than two months to complain about something else, but I’m flat broke.

“Duh” indeed. I suspect it was a slow day . Nothing happening in real astronomy news. No new anti-vax issues , moon hoaxers are quiet. Nothing much on the woo front. Gotta find something to blog about.

I am beginning to suspect that we are witnessing the rise of (for lack of a better term) Knee Jerk Skepticism.

A few weeks ago, “Marketplace” a business oriented program on PRI ran a very tongue-in-cheek piece on maybe using astrology to predict economic trends, as all the other ways seem just as ineffective.
Almost before you could say “Bull shirt,” seemingly half the readers of this blog were having kittens over how NPR was promoting WOO on the air. This led to a call to complain in the “Marketplace” website. And a goodly number of clear-thinking, skeptics immediately grabbed their pitchforks and torches.

But then there was nothing wrong with doing a guest shot on Coast To Coast AM, the biggest den of woo on the air.

We are also seeing a siege mentality forming here. We are surrounded by anti-vaxxers and entire states such as Texas and Louisiana are doomed because a minority of idiots is trying to push ID in school curricula.

Now we have some people upset because they used to like Dilbert before they “knew” Scott Adams is an “anti-evolution loon.” Others are using the “news” to justify their attitudes that they never liked Dilbert anyway. Yeah, it’s hip to oppose anything popular as somehow beneath one.

As far as violators of Wil’s first law: Take a peek in the mirror if you want to see one in person.

I’m off to find a full time astronomy blog–see you in the funny papers.

In other words, he lives to violate Wil’s 1st law…

Cause that’s pretty much what he’s doing.

That he manages to get a rise out of people by posting completely ridiculous and often contradictory things. He’s basically a professional troll.

“Having loosely followed Scott Adams throughout my technical career, I gotta say, I think he’s doing a great job of yanking your chains. That’s pretty much what he does.”

“You say that as if it’s a good thing…”

Not necessarily a good or bad thing. It’s just what he does [from what I have loosely observerd of him]. Personally, I find it somewhat funny but annoying when there seems to be little point to it other than ruffling feathers just to get them ruffled. But it is what it is – and my point is, judging him by what he appears to be what he’s could be nothing more than falling into his trap. He seems to like proving people gullible. Arguing with him = gullible [in his words]. Thus, before anyone gets all fired up about it, think about the fact that this is exactly what he’s trying to create, regardless of whether or not he actually believes it. [And this refers to his little ID/creationist ploys - not to the Dilbert comic strip. As I said before, Dilbert seems a little too true for comfort.]