Single best evidence for common descent

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You place too much stock on Dover. This is allowing the court room of law to arbitrate where experimentation and the laboratory should be doing the talking. A scientifically illiterate judge Jones should not be a deciding factor in science. Laugh is the right phrase.
You don't place enough stock on Dover. That was ID's chance to prove itself. It failed dismally. All it could prove was that (a) it was just creationism in a cheap suit and (b) that its star - Behe - was a liar and incompetent.

You are, however, right in that a judge should not be a deciding factor in science. The deciding factor in science is scientists - who long ago concluded that ID was not science.

But you have me intrigued - can you name some of the "experimentation and laboratory" work the IDers have done?
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
You don't place enough stock on Dover. That was ID's chance to prove itself. It failed dismally. All it could prove was that (a) it was just creationism in a cheap suit and (b) that its star - Behe - was a liar and incompetent.

You are, however, right in that a judge should not be a deciding factor in science. The deciding factor in science is scientists - who long ago concluded that ID was not science.
There are a mob of secularists whose religious atheistic bias has eliminated ID as an option.
But you have me intrigued - can you name some of the "experimentation and laboratory" work the IDers have done?
"There are multiple hubs of ID-related research. Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.


Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming “points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

Here is a list: List of peer reviewed articles.

For a more complete list click the full biography at the end of the article.
 

rossum

Well-known member
There are a mob of secularists whose religious atheistic bias has eliminated ID as an option.
Thank you for confirming yet again that ID is itself a religious option. Yet another confirmation that the Dover judgement was correct.

Remember "cdesign proponentsists"? We do.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Thank you for confirming yet again that ID is itself a religious option. Yet another confirmation that the Dover judgement was correct.

Remember "cdesign proponentsists"? We do.
Get back to me when you find those predictions you promised.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
There are a mob of secularists whose religious atheistic bias has eliminated ID as an option.
Thanks confirming that ID is religiously based, not scientific.
"There are multiple hubs of ID-related research. Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.


Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming “points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

Here is a list: List of peer reviewed articles.

For a more complete list click the full biography at the end of the article.
Firstly, do you have anything other than a post by the DI? Secondly, I asked for experimentation and laboratory work. Not a list of publications.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Thanks confirming that ID is religiously based, not scientific.
So I call your secular mob a bunch of biased atheists and right away that confirms that ID is religiously biased and not scientific. Do you you guys even hear yourselves. First of all I am not an ID associate but rather an interested observer so that anything that I say should not confirm nor detract from the scientific theory of ID. But you messages do confirm that type of bias that ID is faced with every day.
Firstly, do you have anything other than a post by the DI? Secondly, I asked for experimentation and laboratory work. Not a list of publications.
Let's look at three of the first four titles and note the words such as Experimental, Simulating evolution, estimating. What do you think experimentation and laboratory work does? First they experiment and then they publish their work. And did you miss the part about and Biologic Institute or the Evolutionary Informatics Lab? To the secular community nothing would ever be good enough. All evidence that points to intelligent design is thrown out the window to be explained by some future experimentation which we call evolution of the gaps.

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Still not learned that science does evidence, not proof.
What's the difference, you can't do either one.

It's like the two guys having the following conversation:

First guy: Remember the the time that you couldn't do 5 push ups.

Second guy: It was 10 push ups, I couldn't to 10 pushups.

First guy: What the difference, you stopped at two.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You say that you can provide a whole lot of things. For instance, evolution predictions that mimic ID predictions but all we ever see is bobbing and weaving.
You want differing predictions? OK.
  • Evolution predicts that a living pegasus (a horse with added bird wings) will never evolve.
  • ID predicts that the designer could design a living pegasus.
Those are two different predictions from evolution and ID.

Now, all you have to do is to show the existence of a living pegasus and ID is shown to be superior to evolution.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
You want differing predictions? OK.
  • Evolution predicts that a living pegasus (a horse with added bird wings) will never evolve.
  • ID predicts that the designer could design a living pegasus.
Those are two different predictions from evolution and ID.

Now, all you have to do is to show the existence of a living pegasus and ID is shown to be superior to evolution.

Wrong on so many levels. First of all, I posted a set of testable predictions made by ID to which you responded that evolution has made these same predictions. I naturally responded that you should point to where evolution published these same predictions. You listed a document in which I found nothing in the form of predictions and asked that you simply list where these predictions that mimic ID were made. You evaded the issue and have now come up with what seems to be your own ill-conceived prediction that attempts to predict what a designer would do based on what a designer could do. Neglecting such things as free will and the need for such a design. In any case, this does not offer a reprieve from you original ill-warranted statement.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Wrong on so many levels. First of all, I posted a set of testable predictions made by ID to which you responded that evolution has made these same predictions. I naturally responded that you should point to where evolution published these same predictions. You listed a document in which I found nothing in the form of predictions and asked that you simply list where these predictions that mimic ID were made. You evaded the issue and have now come up with what seems to be your own ill-conceived prediction that attempts to predict what a designer would do based on what a designer could do. Neglecting such things as free will and the need for such a design. In any case, this does not offer a reprieve from you original ill-warranted statement.
Thank you for confirming that you have no evidence of living a pegasus.

I know that pegasi can be designed because humans designed them. Or is your proposed designer incapable of designing a pegasus?

As to predictions, you need to find ID predictions that are different from the predictions of evolution. Making the same prediction does not allow us to determine which hypothesis is better.

Both Newton and Einstein predicted elliptical orbits of the planets round the sun. Hence observing elliptical orbits did not allow astronomers to decide which of the two was more correct. Einstein and Newton predicted different values for the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Because the predictions were different, the measured value allowed astronomers to see that Einstein's theory was more accurate than Newton's theory.

ID needs different predictions, which means that ID has to look at the predictions of evolution and predict something different.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Thank you for confirming that you have no evidence of living a pegasus.

I know that pegasi can be designed because humans designed them. Or is your proposed designer incapable of designing a pegasus?

As to predictions, you need to find ID predictions that are different from the predictions of evolution. Making the same prediction does not allow us to determine which hypothesis is better.

Both Newton and Einstein predicted elliptical orbits of the planets round the sun. Hence observing elliptical orbits did not allow astronomers to decide which of the two was more correct. Einstein and Newton predicted different values for the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Because the predictions were different, the measured value allowed astronomers to see that Einstein's theory was more accurate than Newton's theory.

ID needs different predictions, which means that ID has to look at the predictions of evolution and predict something different.
I see that your remedial reading skills are still not working. In order to show which is better from the same predictions, you need to show that they make the same predictions. This is something you keep bobbing and weaving over and fail to address in a sensible manner and no amount of muddying the waters is going to help. Now I ask you for the last time - where does evolution make the same predictions that I presented or even where evolution makes any prediction that is the same as ID that has been published.
 
Top