Again.

Was it something we said?

http://crev.info/content/110920-stretching_credibility_in_evolutionary_stories

What’s your definition of “simpler”? The design of the trilobite eye allowed them
to see underwater perfectly, without distortion. [3-D stereoscopic vision]

While there are certainly evolutionary scenarios [aka story-telling] to account for trilobite
eyes, scholars are agreed that trilobite eyes are highly complex.

Most of the evolutionary scenarios *start* with complexity and discuss mainly how it could be adapted. On what basis are any of the trilobite eyes claimed to be simpler than the vertebrate eye? (which is also incredibly complex).

Nigel Depledge @607 says: “In fact, the changes we observe in trilobite eyes from the Cambrian to the Permian are pretty good examples of evolution.”

All early trilobites (Cambrian) had holochroal eyes and the more sophisticated schizochroal eyes appeared in the Ordovician. What precisely were the other significant “evolutionary innovations” with trilobite eyes through the Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous or Permian?

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMf06.htm

Ian T. Taylor writes:

[snip]

Without wishing to stress the complexity of the human eye and the seeming
impossibility of its all coming together by accident, there is one other example of
an eye even more remarkable, one that was unknown to Darwin. Long before the
vertebrates, the reptiles, or even the fishes had been thought of, there was a very
primitive creature that scuttled about on the floor of the Cambrian seas known as
the trilobite; it came in various shapes and in all sizes up to about twenty inches,
and it had large compound eyes. Recently, Clarkson and Levi-Setti (1975) of the
University of Chicago have done some spectacular work on the optics of the trilobite
eye lenses. It turns out that each lens is a doublet, that is, made up of two
lenses, while the shape of the boundary between the two lenses is unlike any now in
use — either by animals or humans (Shawver 1974). However, the lens shape and the
interface curvature is nearly identical to designs published independently by
Descartes and Huygens in the seventeenth century. Their design had the purpose of avoiding spherical aberration and were known as aplanatic lenses. Levi-Setti pointed out that the second lens in the doublet of the trilobite eye was necessary in order that the lens system could work under water where the trilobites lived. Thus, these creatures living at the earliest stages of life used an optimal lens design that would require very
sophisticated optical engineering procedures to develop today. If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the human eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would he have thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?

*

“The optical arrangement is clearly a very sophisticated structure which quite
belies the antiquity of the animal. This may come as something of a surprise: we
might expect an eye from half-way along optical history to have a slightly
slung-together look, or at least broadly to resemble the eyes of many other lowly
animals, as does the run-of-the-mill trilobite eye. But the eye of Phacops is
something unexpected, a sports coupe in the age of the boneshaker.”
(Fortey R.A., “Trilobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution,” [2000], Flamingo: London, 2001,
reprint, pp. 98, 100)

*

“As a grace-note on this discovery, Riccardo noticed that the trilobite’s design had
been anticipated by the great seventeenth century Dutch scientist Christian Huygens
(1629-95) and the French polymath Rene Descartes (1586-1650). They had sketched out
an optical ‘cure’ for spherical aberration in a lens which proposed a compensating
bowl designed almost exactly like that of the trilobite. This may indeed be a
wonderful example of Art imitating Nature, or perhaps rather of Nature anticipating
Science – by more than 400 million years. S. J. Gould commented in an article in
Natural History in 1984 that ‘the eyes of trilobites … have never been exceeded
for complexity and acuity by later arthropods … I regard the failure to find a
clear “vector of progress” in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil
record.’ The point Gould makes is that it is hard to see how the trilobite could
have achieved its optical design in a still more sophisticated fashion; there
remains a feeling that arthropods ought to have learned some cleverer visual tricks
since the Devonian.” (Fortey R.A., “Trilobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution,” [2000],
Flamingo: London, 2001, reprint, p.102)

*

“Fossils of trilobites appeared suddenly in the geological record during the early
part, but not quite at the base of the Cambrian period, perhaps 540 million years
ago. If you are tempted by the word ‘dramatic’ then this is one occasion where you
could be forgiven for weakening. When you visit a rock section spanning the right
bit of the early Cambrian – and there are such profiles in Newfoundland, Mongolia
and Siberia – there will be not a sniff of a trilobite as you work your way upwards
from one bed to its successor: this is the most methodical way to trudge upwards through geological time. Then, quite suddenly, a whole Profallotaspis or an Olenellus as big as a crab will pop out into your waiting hands as you split the rock. These are trilobites with lots of segments and big eyes: striking things, not little squitty objects. It is an appearance as
dramatic as that of the sorcerer in Swan Lake, who accompanied the first theatrical
explosion I ever experienced. You are tempted to cry out: ‘bang!’. And as you
continue to collect a foot or so higher into younger strata, the first trilobite
will be joined by others, maybe half a dozen or so different species, and all
individually distinctive ones at that.” (Fortey R.A., “Trilobite!: Eyewitness to
Evolution,” [2000], Flamingo: London, 2001, reprint, p.115)

*

“When we humans construct optical elements, we sometimes cement together two lenses
that have different refractive indices, as a means of correcting particular lens defects. In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery–that the refracting interface between the two lens elements in a
trilobite’s eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by
Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century–borders on sheer science fiction.” (Levi-Setti R., “Trilobites,” [1975], The University of Chicago Press: Chicago IL, 1993, Second Edition, pp. 44, 54)

*

“But if we look at the individual elements of the trilobite eye, we find that the
lens systems were very different from what we now have. Riccardo Levi-Setti (a Field
Museum research associate in geology and professor of physics at the University of
Chicago) has recently done some spectacular work on the optics of these lens
systems. Figure 7 shows sketches of a common type of trilobite lens. Each lens is a
doublet (that is, made up of two lenses. The lower lens is shaded in these sketches
and the upper one is blank. The shape of the boundary between the two lenses is
unlike any now in use either by humans or animals. But the shape is nearly identical
to designs published independently by Descartes and Huygens in the seventeenth
century. The Descartes and Huygens designs had the purpose of avoiding spherical
aberration and were what is known as aplanatic lenses. The only significant difference between them and the trilobite lens is that the Descartes and Huygens lenses were not doublets – that is, they did not have the lower lens. But, as Levi-Setti has shown, for these designs to work underwater where the trilobite lived, the lower lens was necessary. Thus, the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today–or one who was familiar with the seventeenth century optical literature.” (Raup D.M., “Conflicts Between Darwin and
Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural
History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, p.24).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/02/16/kurt-wise

[snip]

The design of the schizochroal eye makes it unique among eyes; perhaps even to the
point of being the best optical system known in the biological world. This design,
in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite. The origin of the design of
the schizochroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause. Rather,
it is best understood as being due to an intelligent (design-creating) cause,
through a process involving remarkably high manipulative ability. Among available
hypotheses, creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of the
complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye. — Dr. Kurt Wise. Dr. Wise’s
doctoral degree in palaeontology was completed at Harvard under Professor Stephen
Jay Gould.

http://www.icr.org/article/un-bee-lievable-vision/

[snip]

Twenty-first century research has now revealed that bee vision is more complex than
anyone thought. According to science, arthropods have always been complex—and they
have always been arthropods. One of the first arthropods found in the fossil record
is the amazing trilobite, common in Cambrian and Ordovician sediments. Many of these
creatures are so well preserved that a detailed analysis of their eyes has been
possible:

The elegant physical design of trilobite eyes employ Fermat’s principle, Abbe’s sine
law, Snell’s laws of refraction, and compensates for the optics of birefringent
crystals. Thus, trilobites could see an undistorted image under water. Imagine being
able to see with undistorted vision in all directions, being able to determine
distance in part of that range, while, at the same time, having the optimum sensor
for motion detection.1

So, from the beginning, arthropod vision has been extremely complicated, a fact not
clarified by Darwinism. Indeed, even explaining how the arthropod head supposedly
evolved is an “acrimonious field.”2

“Meaning what? Under drought conditions, the finches’ morphology weas seen to change in response to the environmental conditions. When the drought ended, the finches’ morphology was seen to change in response to the change in environmental conditions.”

But the changes were REVERSED after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred.

“This is evolution, that being change over time. If it isn’t change over time, how else can you describe it? Even if you trivialise it by calling it minor variation, it is not random – it occurs in response to changes in the environment.”

If evolution is just “change over time” (eg. changes in allele frequency) then all creationists and IDers would be evolutionists!

http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1

[snip]

Objection 2: CMI uses a misleading definition of evolution. Evolution is only the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Rebuttal: Evolution is often used to describe anything from the slight change of a species over time (for instance, changes in finch beak size) to molecules-to-man evolution. If evolution is just changes in allele frequency, then CMI would be an evolutionary organization! Our detractors are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation, also known as bait-and-switch. What is really misleading is imputing that CMI denies that allele frequencies change—but then, under an evolutionary belief system, why shouldn’t evolutionists mislead, as one bragged about?

CMI’s definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!

*

Phillip Johnson writes: “If somebody asks, ‘Do you believe in evolution?’ the right reply is not ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ It is: ‘Precisely what do you mean by evolution?’ My experience has been that the first definition I get will be so broad as to be indisputable–like ‘There has been change in the course of life’s history.’ Later on a much more precise and controversial definition will be substituted without notice. That one word evolution can mean something so tiny it hardly matters, or so big it explains the whole history of the universe. Keep your baloney detector trained on that word. If it moves, zap it!” (“Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”, 1997)

From Loxton’s book, “Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be”:
[url omitted]

Page 13:

“On one island, the [Galapagos] finches had large beaks for cracking tough
seeds. On another, they had long thin beaks for catching insects and so
on. But if that was true–if one species could turn into several new
species–how did it happen?”

Jonathan Weiner (“The Beak of the Finch”, 1994) said beak changes during a
severe drought (1977) was “evolution in action”, even though the changes
were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred. The
beak changes can be more accurately described as “minor variation in
action”.

Meaning what? Under drought conditions, the finches’ morphology weas seen to change in response to the environmental conditions. When the drought ended, the finches’ morphology was seen to change in response to the change in environmental conditions.

This is evolution, that being change over time. If it isn’t change over time, how else can you describe it? Even if you trivialise it by calling it minor variation, it is not random – it occurs in response to changes in the environment.

Now – if this does not tax your imagination too much – try to imagine a condition in which the drought never ends (i.e. the selection pressure remains consistent). What might happen then?

Why is it so hard for you even to imagine that minor changes can accumulate when the pressure driving that change is consistently applied?

Page 21:

“Most of these insects [peppered moth] were light colored with dark
pepperlike speckles, while a rare few were dark all over….Within a
hundred years, almost all the moths were dark colored. A change in the
environment led to a physical adaptation in the moths. That’s natural
selection and evolution in action!”

Edward Blyth, English chemist/zoologist (and creationist), wrote his first
of three major articles on natural selection–although not using the
specific term–in The Magazine of Natural History, 24 years before
Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published. Why then do evolutionists
think of natural selection as Darwin’s idea?

Because, numbnuts, Darwin was the first one who joined all the dots. Natural selection was never seen as the major source of biological diversity that we now know it to be.

As for peppered moths, did a new species emerge, or did it already preexist?

Your question is a false dichotomy, because neither case is true. The peppered moths illustrate natural selection, i.e. a change in conditions causing a change in an organism’s morphology. They are not – and have never been held to be – an example of speciation. In case you were interested, the peppered moth is an example of a polymorphic species. The potential for the change was there all along, and it emerged in response to a change in environmental conditions. Had those conditions persisted, we may well have ended up with a new species, but they did not so we will never know.

Page 44:

“How could evolution produce something as complicated as my eyes?….It’s
just not true that eyes need all those parts [lens, iris, muscles, etc.]
to work. As Darwin pointed out, nature today is full of eye designs much
simpler than ours.”

This is a deliberate misrepresentation. The evolution of the mammalian eye is covered in OTOOS. All stages between a simple patch of light-sensitive cells and the whole kit-and-caboodle exist in organisms alive today. The evolution of the mammalian eye is easily explained as a series of gradual changes, with nothing sudden that needs any kind of additional explanation.

Ian T. Taylor writes: “If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the human
eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would he have
thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?” (“In the Minds of Men”,
Fifth Edition, 2003)

Irrelevant. Darwin was able to account for the mammalian eye, and did.

Trilobite eyes are far simpler than ours in most respects, and could quite easily have arisen from simpler precursors. In fact, the changes we observe in trilobite eyes from the Cambrian to the Permian are pretty good examples of evolution.

Did you have a point?

Are you able to actually say something in your own words, or do you really have no mind of your own?

Four linkys to the ICR. Wow. You lose four times over, loser.

The ICR are still a bunch of liars.

Nigel Depledge @577 says: “What they did not find is actual soft tissue.”

Wrong. The Sept. 7/11 email I received from Jack Horner said: “Hi David, yes, Mary and I did describe actual soft tissues from our T-rex nick-named “B-rex.” ”

Jack Horner’s own words ["actual soft tissues"] and the scientific papers by Mary Schweitzer and her team, categorically refute Depledge’s statement.

If the material wasn’t soft tissue, why does Schweitzer refer to it as soft tissue in the following paper?

Depledge is in denial.

And now answer the point I raised – did they in fact find intact cells?

No.

And how many biologists would accept your definition of “tissue” that doesn’t contain any intact cells?

None.

Now stop splitting hairs over the words in an email you received and either address the points I have raised, or accept them.

The finding – remarkable as it is, despite (alright) arguably not actually being soft tissue but only the soft and flexible remains of soft tissue – does not mean what you claimed it means.

Evolution of an author
Canadian children’s book goes where American librarians, school boards
fear to tread
By Amy Smart, Times Colonist, September 8, 2011

=======================================================

Daniel Loxton is also editor of Junior Skeptic, a youth supplement included in
each issue of Skeptic, a magazine that “examines extraordinary claims.”

Why is evolution the one subject skeptics aren’t skeptical about?

From Loxton’s book, “Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be”:
http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Evolution–KidsCanPress–FB.pdf

Page 13:

“On one island, the [Galapagos] finches had large beaks for cracking tough
seeds. On another, they had long thin beaks for catching insects and so
on. But if that was true–if one species could turn into several new
species–how did it happen?”

Jonathan Weiner (“The Beak of the Finch”, 1994) said beak changes during a
severe drought (1977) was “evolution in action”, even though the changes
were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred. The
beak changes can be more accurately described as “minor variation in
action”.

Page 21:

“Most of these insects [peppered moth] were light colored with dark
pepperlike speckles, while a rare few were dark all over….Within a
hundred years, almost all the moths were dark colored. A change in the
environment led to a physical adaptation in the moths. That’s natural
selection and evolution in action!”

Edward Blyth, English chemist/zoologist (and creationist), wrote his first
of three major articles on natural selection–although not using the
specific term–in The Magazine of Natural History, 24 years before
Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published. Why then do evolutionists
think of natural selection as Darwin’s idea?

As for peppered moths, did a new species emerge, or did it already preexist?

Page 44:

“How could evolution produce something as complicated as my eyes?….It’s
just not true that eyes need all those parts [lens, iris, muscles, etc.]
to work. As Darwin pointed out, nature today is full of eye designs much
simpler than ours.”

Ian T. Taylor writes: “If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the human
eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would he have
thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?” (“In the Minds of Men”,
Fifth Edition, 2003)

For Loxton not to include scientific information that questions evolution
is to teach evolution as dogma.

Now that Luxton has won $10,000 for winning the Lane Anderson Award:

http://www.bookcentre.ca/news/evolution_wins_lane_anderson_award

he can try to double his money by agreeing to participate in the Life Science Prize:

http://www.lifescienceprize.org/

On Sept. 14 Luxton was formally challenged and has until Oct. 5 to decide.

From the Sept. 14 email Luxton was sent:

[snip]

Your son and the thousands of children who read your book (and your Junior
Skeptic magazine) will admire you for putting your money where your mouth
is. After all, they just might use that “critical thinking” you urge them
to use.

[snip]

The Life Science Prize is based upon the claim that evolution is an
inverted-fantasy religion that does not exist, never has, and never will
because it is based on vitalism superstitions 2,500 years old completely
outside the realm of science, the exact opposite of reality, and taught by
frauds and forgeries in the public schools in violation of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This claim
is addressed to every evolutionist worldwide bar none. If you do not
answer this claim by contending for the Life Science Prize by the deadline
below, then you will be put on the Debate Dodgers (default-judgment) List
(see http://www.lifescienceprize.org/).

Life Science Prize Rules

1. The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge. You may team up
with Shermer, Scott, Myers, and any amount of evolutionists.
2. The creationist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
3. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is
religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
4. If the creationist proves creation is science and evolution is
religion, then the creationist is awarded the $20,000.
5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and
calibrated.
6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.
7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party both
checks.
8. The judge is a superior court judge.
9. The venue is a courthouse.

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo will contend for the creationists and has his
$10,000 ready to hand the judge.

[snip]

Posted on September 15, 2011

http://crev.info/content/110915-grebe_left_imaginary_dinosaur_feathers_in_amber

*

Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber
September 15, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/1233408557/ID=2131088291

*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/15/science-dinosaur-feathers.html

Wrong. The Sept. 7/11 email I received from Jack Horner said: “Hi David, yes, Mary and I did describe actual soft tissues from our T-rex nick-named “B-rex.” ”

Jack Horner’s own words ["actual soft tissues"] and the scientific papers by Mary Schweitzer and her team, categorically refute Depledge’s statement.

If the material wasn’t soft tissue, why does Schweitzer refer to it as soft tissue in the following paper?

Depledge is in denial.

Science 1 May 2009:
Vol. 324 no. 5927 pp. 626-631
DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069
Report
Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis

Mary H. Schweitzer et. al

Molecular preservation in non-avian dinosaurs is controversial. We present multiple lines of evidence that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis [Museum of the Rockies (MOR) 2598]. Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides. These data complement earlier results from Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and confirm that molecular preservation in Cretaceous dinosaurs is not a unique event.

*

Move the time bar to begin at the 5:00 minute mark…

http://wn.com/T-REX_BLOOD_CELLS_IS_NOT_70_MIL_YEARS_OLD-MUST_SEE!!!

Schweitzer’s lab assistant: “As I was looking in the microscope, the medullary material was no longer hard, and um, what was left was this curled piece of tissue that I was using forcepts to try and flatten out. And when I poked into it, it was spongy. It was flexible and soft tissue.”

Host: Flexible tissue from a 68 million-year-old dinosaur?

Schweitzer: Blood vessels. Transparent. Hollow. Pliable. Flexible. Branching blood vessels that contain small round red microstructures floating in the vessels. I said, ‘This is not possible. Do it again.’ We got another piece of bone. We put it in the solution. We waited 2 or 3 or 4 weeks. Looked again. More blood vessels. We must have repeated that with probably 17 or 18 different fragments of bone.

Host: As soon as Schweitzer’s discovery of dinosaur soft tissue was published, people thought of one thing–could we get a real life Jurassic Park?

See also:

http://www.icr.org/article/peer-review-fails-soft-tissue-study/

http://www.icr.org/article/latest-soft-tissue-study-skirts-issues/

For the past two decades, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has been at the cutting edge of research demonstrating that certain dinosaur remains contain original soft tissue. Of course, since this material should have completely decomposed after only thousands of years, none should be left after the millions of years assigned to these remains. And this is why scientists who have chosen to investigate soft tissue remain divided over the issue.

http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-can-cartilage-last/

http://www.icr.org/article/extraordinary-mosasaur-fossil-reveals/

A universal claim of atheists is that no thought was involved in the origin of biology.

Er … no, not actually.

The actual claim is that there is no evidence of teleology in biology, and that there is no evidence to suggest that life needed intelligence to begin.

Aside from the evidentiary situation, if you claim the opposite, you must answer the question of who designed the designer. According to the DI, the designer is not necessarily god. So, without referring to a religious fairy-tale about the origin of life, how does ID / creationism explain how life began?

This is because they claim there was no mind to have any thoughts about the bringing to be of any organism.

Wrong.

Oh, so wrong. Such a strawman. Yes, it’s easy to argue against what you claim is claimed, but I have never seen anyone actually claim what you claim is claimed.

Irrespective of the nature of consciousness, there is nothing to indicate that any thought or mind is needed to explain the origin of life. What is actually claimed is that there is no evidence to suggest that thought is needed for or was involved in the beginning and development of life on Earth.

However, if you do choose to invoke some kind of creator or designer, you then take up the burden of proof. Show that a creator exists, or at least devise some test to determine the veracity or otherwise of your claim. Explain how the designer came to be, and how that designer actualised their design. State (at least approximately) how many designers you think there were, and what your reasons are for this answer. Without these answers, all you are doing is waving your arms and shouting.

Material processes were all that were involved.

Not necessarily so. Material processes are all that were needed. If some creator-god set things going in the beginning, there is no way to tell whether or not this is so, so it is therefore an assumption that is unnecessary.

The above statement should be uncontroversial.

Well, had you actually represented the actual views expressed by actual atheists, then maybe it would be so.

If there is any evidence of thought being involved, then atheism is dead.

Not according to the Disovery Institute, who have claimed that the designer was not necessarily god, but could have been space aliens.

Once thought is allowed, atheism is no longer tenable.

No, for the reason stated above. Either you must reject ID altogether, or you must accept that your argument is empty. Do you reject ID altogether? Do you instead prefer the creationist position?

One clear indication of thought is evidence of forethought.

There is no evidence of teleology in biology. So your paragraph might as well stop here.

As purely material/evolutionary processes can’t see ahead and anticipate events that have not yet occurred (they happen in the present with no knowledge of the future), any indication of a future being anticipated shows that such processes were not those that brought these things about, rather thought was involved.

Yes. People (real actual scientists) have loked for such evidence and found none.

Are there indications of forethought in biology? Yes. I’ll give just two.

This should be good.

1. A human baby develops in the womb in a watery environment, yet develops lungs in anticipation of a future day when it will live in an air environment.

What? How does this indicate forethought in design?

A baby develops teeth before it can eat, too, but that’s not forethought, it’s simply a pattern of development that arose through trial and error. Just like the development of lungs in the foetus.

All land vertebrates develop lungs one way or another. Why does a tadpole develop lungs? Because its body is following a pattern of growth and development that trial and error has shown to be more successful than the alternative.

Really, if that’s one of your top two bits of “evidence” against evolution, you need to do a lot more homework.

2. Animals with skeletons have within them systems for healing broken bones. These systems are in place in anticipation of a break in a bone occurring in the future, though they are not required until a break occurs.

And, similarly, such systems were adapted from the cells that allow bones to grow in the first place, through a trial-and-error process that ended up with a system that is more conducive to having the organism survive than if the organism did not have that system.

Such evidence of ‘forethought’ refutes atheism, and evolution as the means by which biology came to be.

Nonsense. Your “evidence” is – at best – a combination of wishful thinking and naivety. At worst, it is a cynical attempt to manipulate the ignorant and gullible. I give you an “F”.

PayasYouStargaze (223) said:

1. Are you a creationist or an intelligent designist? (After you made such a fuss of those being different from each other)

2. What is the theory of creation/intelligent design, depending on your answer to question 1?

3. What do you think the theory of evolution actually states?

4. Do you prefer the creation/ID view to that of mainstream science, and if so, why?

Please answer these questions in your own words without links or quotes from ANY website, book or other work that is not your own. I want to know YOUR answers and YOUR views.

This is not difficult. We just want you to share what you think really explains the diversity of life on Earth.

I challenge you to come up with any argument in favour of ID that is not:
1. intrinsically reliant on the false dichotomy of “not evolution, therefore design”; or
2. an argument by analogy; or
3. an argument from personal incredulity; or
4. an argument from ignorance; or
5. some nonsensical tosh in which words taken from information theory are put through a mangle and then tossed up together; or
6. any combination of 1 – 5 above.

Darwin concludes his book (1860 to 1876 editions):

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Compare this with the first edition (1859):

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

So, you (at least claim to) have read it. You just didn’t understand it.

The first edition is the only version I have read, replete with all the errors that were corrected by his biologist colleagues. So, taking the text of this paragraph from the first edition, that he believed in a creator-god when he wrote it is unquestionable. Just because he does not use the word “creator” does not change the meaning of the sentence. As you point out, he was advised to add the word “creator” to make the reference more explicit or more palatable. But bear in mind he was writing for an educated lay audience for most of whom the existence of a creator-god was itself unquestionable.

It is only in later life that Darwin developed into an agnostic. When OTOOS was first published, he was a firm believer.

None of which changes the value and validity of his core insights.

Nigel, in case you’re interested in a little background on David, may I suggest you google David F. Coppedge.

Gosh, and how I now wish I had not.

What a loser!

OOLs for Evolution

[snip]

The first rOOL for Evolution: become a fOOL for evolution. Sacrifice your brain to Charlie by signing a pledge to force the world, including uncooperative chemistry, into his fantasy scenarios of molecular shotgun weddings, hopeful monsters, and blockbuster shadows projected onto the cave wall. Since many in the funding institutions are intellectually fool-filled atheists, too, life on the fun E-farm (1. 07/14/11) can be rewarding. You’ll have lots of fool-o-ship, and you can drOOL all the way to the bank. Cool.

Wow, what a load of dross.

Once again, you attempt to ignore the fact that, irrespective of how life started, natural selection is inevitable. Evolution will happen wherever a selection pressure exists.

For your own good, though, we wish you a reality check. It might hurt a bit. Tough love can seem crOOL (creation origin of life), but satisfying in the long run; in fact, wooly good (Isaiah 1:18).

Evolution will happen even if the origin of life was an event of creation.

To reiterate : evolutionary theory explains how life changes over time. It does not need life to have arisen spontaneously.

Now, onto the origin of life: your ignorance is showing. New studies indicate that, actually, it was probably fairly easy and straightforward for some rudimentary form of life to have come into being through the rules of chemistry and physics. Once again, you are making the mistake of assuming the first life had to be as efficient as life is today.

Ah, yes, more imagination. As I wrote in a web article, the number one cool thing about being an evolutionist is you don’t have to make any distinction between fact and wild speculation.

This is more bovine faecal matter, irrespective of where you scribbled it.

Nigel Depledge @576 says: “In fact, naturalism is the only way it is possible to do anything resembling science. Without reproducible and measureable observations, you can never support any claim.”

Reproducible and measureable observations are part of the scientific method, but each theory of origin is a paradigm/model in which to interpret the data eg. fossils.

What utter garbage!

The data are what they are, irrespective of your favoured story of the origin of biological diversity.

The difference between science and creationism is that science goes where the data tell it to, and creationism shoehorns the data into their a priori assumption.

But one cannot travel back in time and _directly observe_ the universe, life on earth, etc. come into existence.

So what? We have plenty of evidence for evolution in living organisms. (And that’s even ignoring the powerful support from the fossil record.)

Nigel Depledge @576 says: “This is why many claims for supernatural phenomena fail. Naturalism is not, however, a philosophical necessity, it is instead a methodological one. Science does not require naturalism to be true in any philosophical sense, because naturalism is simply a necessary assumption.”

Whether ID is Science isn’t Semantics
by Alvin Plantinga
[url omitted]

I notice you are linking and quoting again rather than trying to understand the arguments for yourself. And linking to the Discovery Institute is an instant lose. Their fellows are proven liars.

What do you actually think and believe?

[snip]

But what about methodological naturalism and all the rest of those proposed constraints? Perhaps the following is the best way to think about the matter: There are many related enterprises, all scientific in that they satisfy (a) and (b). For each of those proposed constraints, there is an activity falling under (a) and (b), the aim of which is in fact characterized by that constraint. For each or at any rate many of the proposed constraints there is another activity falling under (a) and (b), the aim of which does not fall under that constraint. Further, when people propose that a given constraint pertains to science just as such, to all of science, so to speak, they are ordinarily really endorsing or recommending one or more of the activities the aim of which is characterized by that constraint.

This is nothing but gibberish. Seriously, it doesn’t mean anything.

In what way do you think this supports your position?

Now how does this work out with methodological naturalism? Well, there are some scientific activities that are indeed constrained by methodological naturalism. The partisans of methodological naturalism are endorsing or promoting those scientific activities and recommending them as superior to scientific activities not so constrained. But of course there are other scientific activities — Newton’s, for example — that are not so constrained.

Ah, this is a lie.

The confirmation of Newton’s work on mechanics and optics does indeed rely on methodological naturalism.

To put this point another way – exactly how can one know that f = ma without using methodological naturalism?

To make it simpler, how can you cross a busy street without relying on methodological naturalism?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing science in accord with methodological naturalism? There is a good deal to be said on both sides here. For example, if you exclude the supernatural from science,

First, the supernatuiral is not, in principle, excluded by science. Claims about astrology, intercessory prayer and ESP have been scientifically investigated. Those “phenomena” have been found to be fantasy.

More deeply, you are completely ignoring the point that I made earlier, which is that any supposed supernatural phenomenon that is demonstrated to be real will suddenly no longer be supernatural – it will be natural. I.e. a part of nature.

then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused — as most of the world’s people believe — you won’t be able to reach that truth scientifically.

This is also garbage. First, it is a mere baseless assertion. Plantinga has not even tried to support this. Second, what people believe has no bearing on how reality actually behaves. Third, if some phenomenon were to be shown to be “supernaturally caused” then that supernatural causative agent becomes accessible to investigation, because one cannot demonstrate such a thing without proving that said causative agent actually exists. Fourth, in such a case your supernatural causative agent becomes natural, i.e. it has been shown to be a part of nature after all. Fifth, the point is wholly illogical, because what the hell does “supernaturally caused” mean anyway?

Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science by precluding science from reaching what would be an enormously important truth about the world.

This is bovine faecal matter.

Methodological naturalism is necessary. The only way any consensual truth can be achieved in the world is by reference to evidence. The only way to obtain evidence about a phenomenon is to apply methodological naturalism, since this is the only way to get hold of any data that are the same for every observer.

Here’s an example of what might happen if you throw methodological naturalism out of the window:
Q: Why is the sky blue?
A: In my dreams, it is purple.
Q: WTF?

Without some referent that is common to all observers, progress in understanding is impossible. Reference to the natural world (i.e. naturalism) is the only way of obtaining such a common referent.

It might be that, just as a result of this constraint, even the best science in the long run will wind up with false conclusions

Maybe so. And completely irrelevant. The only way you can ever disprove a scientific finding is through the use of evidence. In terms of making statements about the universe, your choice is between science and “we don’t know”. That really is it. It doesn’t matter what verbiage Plantinga uses to try to conceal this fact. Without the verification that comes from using science to find stuff out, you can never really have any confidence in any statement.

Science does not seek what you might term absolute truth, if there is any such thing; it is only concerned with truth that can be shown to be so. By the same token, it doesn’t care what people believe, it only cares what can be demonstrated.

The researchers found actual soft tissue.

Today (Sept. 7/11) I received this email from Jack Horner:

Hi David, yes, Mary and I did describe actual soft tissues from our T-rex
nick-named “B-rex.” But, keep in mind that organic tissue is simply chemical bonds
(molecules), and that what was found were blood vessels consisting of the protein
elastin, which, based on our studies, is a very stable chemical molecule. We have
been finding this material in many specimens since the discovery of the original
material. And, of course, they are elastic because they are made of elastin. Most
of what we find is not elastic, but has crystalized. The elastic elastin is found
deep inside the dinosaur bones protected from the atmosphere and bacteria.

Hope that helps to clarify.

Jack

My bolding.

There is more to blood vessels than elastin.

Did they find intact cells? No. Therefore, they did not find what any biologist would call soft tissue.

As I said, the discovery itself is remarkable, but it isn’t what you claimed it was, and it doesn’t mean what you claimed it means.

In addition to my response @571 …

http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1

1. How did life originate?

Answer 1: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the discussion of evolution—it is a separate topic.

Rebuttal: No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it.

Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life). It doesn’t matter how well one can or can’t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can’t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water (or the (non-existent) primordial soup, as the case may be).
Notice also that, as we stated clearly above, creationists believe in changing allele frequencies over time. Therefore, since both sides claim this as part of their model, the debate must lie outside this area. Hence, the origin of life is fair game for discussions on whether or not evolution is true.

See our Origin of Life Q&A for more information.

http://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers

Hominid fossils may shake up the human family tree
By Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times
September 8, 2011, 4:26 p.m.

*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/08/science-sediba-hominin-fossil.html

Fossils revise human evolution theories
CBC News Posted: Sep 8, 2011 10:40 AM

*
Media Respond Predictably to Latest Ape-Man
Posted on September 08, 2011

http://crev.info/content/110908-media_respond_predictably

*
The Problem with Australopithecus sediba
by Marvin Lubenow on August 11, 2010

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/problem-with-australopithecus-sediba

*

Phillip Johnson writes in “Darwin on Trial”: “The fossils provide much more discouragement than support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist paleontology. The Darwinist approach has consistently been to find some supporting fossil evidence, claim it as proof for ‘evolution,’
and then ignore all the difficulties.” (2nd edition 1993, p. 86)

The above statement should be uncontroversial.

If there is any evidence of thought being involved, then atheism is dead. Once thought is allowed, atheism is no longer tenable.

One clear indication of thought is evidence of forethought. As purely material/evolutionary processes can’t see ahead and anticipate events that have not yet occurred (they happen in the present with no knowledge of the future), any indication of a future being anticipated shows that such processes were not those that brought these things about, rather thought was involved.

Are there indications of forethought in biology? Yes. I’ll give just two.

1. A human baby develops in the womb in a watery environment, yet develops lungs in anticipation of a future day when it will live in an air environment.
2. Animals with skeletons have within them systems for healing broken bones. These systems are in place in anticipation of a break in a bone occurring in the future, though they are not required until a break occurs.

Such evidence of ‘forethought’ refutes atheism, and evolution as the means by which biology came to be.

There are several editions of On the Origin of Species, all available online at:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html#origin

Even though words such as “Creator”, “creation” and “theory of creation” do appear…

Darwin’s real message: Have you missed it?
by Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it

[snip]

6. Darwin’s casual aside about a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species seems to have been a ploy to soften the implications of his materialistic theory. Ernst Mayr’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as
follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’

[snip]

*

Darwin concludes his book (1860 to 1876 editions):

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Compare this with the first edition (1859):

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

But it was his friend, Thomas Huxley, who, after reading the first edition (1859) advised Darwin to make some token reference to God, or the Creator, in subsequent editions to forestall accusations of atheism from Christian readers.

And with reference to the first edition (1859), Darwin wrote on page 184:

“In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely
open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”

The above was removed from subsequent editions, but later Darwin wrote:

“I still maintain that there is no special difficulty in a bear’s mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits.” (“More Letters of Charles Darwin,” 1903, page 162)

The web article I was referring to is:

http://www.nwcreation.net/topten.html

*

Another David–David F. Coppedge– is the blogger at Creation-Evolution Headlines:

http://crev.info

*

Coppedge Lawsuit Against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab Amended to Allege Wrongful Termination
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/coppedge_lawsuit_against_nasas044751.html

*

World Magazine Reports on the David Coppedge Case
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/world_magazine_reports_on_the_043991.html

*

Background on David Coppedge and the Lawsuit Against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory Revised
http://www.discovery.org/a/14511