Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Intelligent Design and the Fossil Record (unofficial)

-
lkeithlu/KL wants ID to explain the fossil record- specifically the hominids:

If you can apply the ID paradigm to the hominid fossils, then do so. But, please realize: Anthropologists have to write volumes to explain the sequence of fossils as they see it, and draw on the physical parameters, ages and geographical distributions to do so. Your simplistic one -sentence answers do not take care of the details. So, pick a section of hominid sequence and apply the ID paradigm. Why is that so hard? Your cohorts at UD made it sound like it was no big deal, but I can't get them to mention a single fossil, bone length ratio, joint angle, strata, radiometric method, comparison with modern humans or apes, nada. All I get is religion and philosophy and that all anthropologists are wasting their life, not to mention being left out of the conversation for days at a time by a biased and draconian moderation policy.

So defend your friends' claim, since they won't.

Once AGAIN- Intelligent Design is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry- here are my references:

From the Intelligent Design authorities it is clear that ID is neither anti-evolution nor anti- common ancestry:

Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
Response to "NOT (JUST) IN KANSAS ANYMORE" BY EUGENIE C. SCOTT, SCIENCE (MAY 2000)


Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design.

And:




ID precludes neither neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations tha material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and



Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

Also, as I have said, fossils can't say anything about a mechanism. All fossils tell us is such an organism once existed.

I don't have any complaints about any measurements of any fossil length, width, articulations. I have no doubt paleos do an excellent job. That said any pattern of fossils can be due to patternicity- nice of KL/lkeithlu to keep ignoring that part of my responses to her.

With that in mind, Intelligent Design, that is the design inference, is not based on fossils.

I would say it is more important to figure out the genetics, the biological part. Figure that out-> figure out what makes an organism what it is first. Then figure out if genomic changes are sufficient/ capable of creating the changes required.

We have 35 million years of fruit fly evolution that has produced many new essential genes. Yet the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

Chimps and humans diverged some 4-7 million years ago. IOW you need some evidence for a mechanism that can produce the changes required and in that amount of time, ie generations.

And that is most likely what my friends were trying to tell you.

30 Comments:

  • At 9:45 PM, Blogger Lisa said…

    Alright-that helps.
    So you disagree with the folks at UD?

     
  • At 9:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    good night-

    any on-topic comments will show up tomorrow morning- thank you for your cooperation.

     
  • At 9:48 PM, Blogger Lisa said…

    It appears that my comments are moderated excessively here too.

     
  • At 7:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Lisa,

    kairosfocus agrees with what I posted. Dembski wrote some of what I posted.

    In what way do I disagree with the folks at UD?

    Sorry I missed your comment last night I was busy watching the Bruins slosh around and pull out an OT victory. Then there was a little celebrating.

     
  • At 8:08 AM, Blogger Lisa said…

    No problem. What I want to know is if you disagree with what KF and others said on UD: Physical and Paleo Anthropologists have wasted their careers chasing a fantasy; that evolution does not correctly explain the hominid fossil record. You and others claim the ID does, but no one seems willing to apply it to this fossil record other than just general statements. If an anthropologist makes a statement regarding the fossil record, he or she uses the evidence to illustrate it. I am asking no less of ID. KF and others have been dismissive of common descent, but you obviously think that common descent is okay. Can you articulate the ID theory regarding the hominid fossil record, and use specifics to illustrate what you mean? That is, without using metaphysics, theology or philosophy. Just the physical attributes like anthropology does (features, ages, biometrics, comparisons to present day organisms, geographical distribution) You can choose a related set of fossils to keep it a bit shorter.

    Not only will no one on UD answer, they moderate my comments for days so it is impossible to carry on a conversation. In addition, KF claims that he is in regular touch with the moderator, and in the same post insinuates that I am lying about the moderation.

     
  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger Lisa said…

    PS I will be away from the computer for the next hour. Take your time.

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Physical and Paleo Anthropologists have wasted their careers chasing a fantasy; that evolution does not correctly explain the hominid fossil record.

    That is a possibility. I don't categorically deny universal common descent, there just isn't any genetic data that can be linked to the transformations.

    You and others claim the ID does, but no one seems willing to apply it to this fossil record other than just general statements.

    Seeing that paleos do not speak of mechanisms, and seeing the debate is all about mechanisms, what is there to say?

    However some IDists have weighed in on the Cambrian "explosion" saying the "sudden" appearance is evidence for design.

    Can you articulate the ID theory regarding the hominid fossil record, and use specifics to illustrate what you mean?

    I take it that you didn't understand what I wrote in the OP.

    ID doesn't have any issues with what your husband and others have found.

    IDists take issue when evos take that and say something about the mechanisms that caused such a change.

    But again until we have some genetic evidence to link to the changes then all you have is patternicity.

     
  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID doesn't have any issue with the fossils nor the pattern evolutionary paleos make of them.

    OTOH IDists may not have a problem wth the fossils but at least some have an issue with the pattern evolutionary paleos make of them.

    Phenotypic plasticity and normal variation within a population can account for what evolutionary paleos observe. Meaning the hominid tree, lineage, bush- whatever you want to call it- could definitely exist in the minds of people who already "saw" it in their minds, ie patternicity.

     
  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Lisa said…

    "ID doesn't have any issues with what your husband and others have found."

    This contradicts what they say on UD.

    "Seeing that paleos do not speak of mechanisms, and seeing the debate is all about mechanisms, what is there to say?"

    What paleos say about the fossil record assumes the mechanism of rm and ns. If ID shifts the paradigm, then use the evidence to explain.

    "However some IDists have weighed in on the Cambrian "explosion" saying the "sudden" appearance is evidence for design."

    This is well explained by evolution and needs no design explanation.

    "Phenotypic plasticity and normal variation within a population can account for what evolutionary paleos observe."

    This is not true-there are no living examples showing the specific biometrics found in hominid fossils, either in the apes or in the variations in human populations.

    My reasons for even coming to UD is I have a problem with armchair philosophers dismissing the hard work and decades of experience represented by anthropologists (or any scientist) based on a complete ignorance of the specifics combines with computer analogies that don't apply, theology, and metaphysics. The fact that there is no articulated ID theory, and that ID is not being put to the test in field and laboratory, and is kept deliberately vague to accommodate young earth and other creationist ideas is harmless, until the Discovery Institute tries to insert it as science in the public mind and in public schools. Then it becomes a problem, in part MY problem as a science educator.

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Lisa said…

    BTW, as I see what else is written on your blog, I am not going to waste any guilt on calling you a boolicker. That's kindergarten stuff compared to some of the things you write!

     
  • At 9:18 AM, Blogger Lisa said…

    One more thing (sorry for multiple posts)

    The work in the field of genetics supports paleontology and paleo anthropology.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lisa:
    This contradicts what they say on UD.

    kairofocus agrees with me and has said that. And it is true some IDists disagree. They are not ID.

    What paleos say about the fossil record assumes the mechanism of rm and ns.

    You cannot assume what needs to be demonstrated. WTF?

    If ID shifts the paradigm, then use the evidence to explain.

    The current "paradigm" is unscientific, ie it cannot be tested it has to be assumed.

    "However some IDists have weighed in on the Cambrian "explosion" saying the "sudden" appearance is evidence for design."

    This is well explained by evolution and needs no design explanation.

    Yeah, blah, blah, blah.

    You have absolutely no evidence that accumulating random mutations can construct useful, functional multi-part systems.


    "Phenotypic plasticity and normal variation within a population can account for what evolutionary paleos observe."

    This is not true

    Just look at the phenotypic plasticity we observe in dogs.

    The fact that there is no articulated ID theory, and that ID is not being put to the test in field and laboratory,

    OK, fuck you.

    ID is based on observations and experiences- ie our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    ID makes specific claims, claims that can be refuted- refuted by evos supporting their position!

    Your position has to be assumed because it cannot be tested:

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I will look at the TO link later

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Lisa said…

    "The fact that there is no articulated ID theory, and that ID is not being put to the test in field and laboratory,

    OK, fuck you."

    OK, this conversation is over. My statement above is correct, and you know it, since there is no articulated theory and no use of it in field and lab. Even creation science attempts to DO science. AND you counter with profanity? That speaks volumes.

    Bye

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lisa:
    My statement above is correct,

    Your statement is pure bullshit.

    ID is based on observations and experiences- ie our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

    ID makes specific claims, claims that can be refuted- refuted by evos supporting their position!


    Nice of you to ignore that part of my post.

    Of course there is a use for ID in the lab and field- just as there is a use for forensic science and archaeology-> it matters to any investigation how that which is being investigated arose.

    Perhaps your husband is a scientist but you appear ignorant of science.

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Tracy said…

    Joe, sweetie - you're such a loser.

    You also clearly have issues with women.

     
  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tracy, babes, coming from someone like you that means nothing.

    Issues with women? Well yeah, I am a man. Duh. But mostly I just observe their issues.

     
  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Lisa: If ID shifts the paradigm, then use the evidence to explain."

    Joe blow: "The current "paradigm" is unscientific, ie it cannot be tested it has to be assumed."

    Your position, ID, is untestable, and is assumed.

    "ID makes specific claims, claims that can be refuted- refuted by evos supporting their position!"

    Actually, ID proponents make extremely vague, untestable claims with no evidence whatsoever. And there you go again Joe, using "evos" as a label for your opponents, even though you still claim that ID has no problem with evolution. According to you then, and in spite of your constant lies that ID has no problem with evolution, the way to refute ID would be to show evidence of evolution. In other words, evolution, according to you, is the opposite of ID. I'm glad we got that cleared up. You can stop lying now, since your real position is obvious.

    "Seeing that paleos do not speak of mechanisms, and seeing the debate is all about mechanisms, what is there to say?"

    Huh? What? Paleontologists certainly do speak of mechanisms.

    "kairofocus agrees with me and has said that. And it is true some IDists disagree. They are not ID."

    Oh, so Gordon the religious nutcase agreeing with you makes your ID position correct then? Are you and Gordon ID?

    "You have absolutely no evidence that accumulating random mutations can construct useful, functional multi-part systems."

    You have absolutely no evidence that ID has ever occurred. None. Zero. Your untestable assumptions aren't evidence.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The current "paradigm" is unscientific, ie it cannot be tested it has to be assumed."

    the whole tard:
    Your position, ID, is untestable

    Liar- ID is based on observations and experiences. It can be tested and refuted.

    "ID makes specific claims, claims that can be refuted- refuted by evos supporting their position!"

    the whole tard:
    Actually, ID proponents make extremely vague, untestable claims with no evidence whatsoever.

    Strange how some scientists are saying they are testing it and refuting it.

    the whole tard:
    And there you go again Joe, using "evos" as a label for your opponents, even though you still claim that ID has no problem with evolution.

    And I have explained that several times. You must be retarded.

    According to you then, and in spite of your constant lies that ID has no problem with evolution, the way to refute ID would be to show evidence of evolution.

    No you dumbass mother fucker. I and others have explained EXACTLY what ID argues for and against and EXACTLY what would refute ID.

    OTOH you are a drooling moron.

    Paleontologists certainly do speak of mechanisms.

    They have nothing to say about the mechanisms by looking at fossils.

    "You have absolutely no evidence that accumulating random mutations can construct useful, functional multi-part systems."

    You have absolutely no evidence that ID has ever occurred.

    Thanks for proving my point and I have presented the evidence for ID.

    OTOH all you can do is spew...

     
  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Part one:

    Look who's spewing about spewing. Spewing is all you do Joe-boi.

    I see you're still blocking some of my comments too. You chickenshit wimp.

    Let's take a look at some of the things you've said, at Amazon:

    "ID is not Creation"

    Then how can ID be about origins? Were all origins strictly materialistic?

    "Paley isn't any patron saint. IDists say he went to far- We say that arguments for design are not arguments for any specific designer."

    Then why do ID proponents on Uncommon Descent constantly argue that the christian god is the specific designer? Why don't you tell them ID isn't about a designer, and isn't about a god or gods or religion or supernatural things, etc.?

    "... Intelligent design already incorporates that- not everything in the universe has been nor had to have been directly designed."

    Exactly what is designed and what is not?

    "I wouldn't run to any "God" hypothesis and I would fight to the death anyone who attempted to make ID into a religious argument."

    Then why aren't you fighting to the death with ALL the religious zealots on UD who constantly make ID into a religious argument? You know, like your buddy kairosfocus.

    "And again IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant."

    IDC stands for intelligent design creationism. 'Origins and 'creation' are the same thing in ID or religion speak. You say ID is about origins but not about creation. If organisms weren't created, how did they originate Joe? By strictly materialistic means?

    "As for IDC- that doesn't even exist except in the minds of the willfully ignorant- ie people like you."

    See above. And by the way, have you ever said those words on UD? You do have the guts to do so, don't you?

    "But anyway ID is based on observation and experience. It can be tested."

    Then test it on a variety of living and nonliving things in nature and show exactly how you did the tests.

    "And yes science does march on and someday either you will find the data to support your position or admit failure."

    Right back at you Joe.

     
  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Part two:

    More of what you said at Amazon:

    "Ya see Ray science has determined that the universe had a beginning. And natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannoty account for its origins.

    IOW Ray the materialistic position is doomed from the start- not that I expect you to grasp that."

    So, you contend then that the universe/nature was created. That its origins were not materialistic. That a designer created and designed the universe/nature. So much for IDC not being the same thing as ID.

    "So just as the origin of life is kept separate from the theory of evolution ID keeps those questions separate from the detection and study of the design."

    ID keeps them separate?? Have you told that to all the religious kooks on UD, and yourself?

    You've admitted again that ID is IDC and that origins = creation.

    "Also as I said how Earth and living organisms originated directly impacts any and all subsequent change. Do you understand that?

    Now if, as you say, no one has any evidence for origins then why is it that ID can be kept out all the while anti-ID nonsense is being passed off as science?"

    And again you've admitted that ID is IDC and that origins = creation.

    "That said ID is not about the designer and your "arguments" agianst ID are theological in nature."

    The arguments on UD (and elsewhere) for ID are thoroughly theological in nature Joe. Why aren't you there fighting to the death against all those theological arguments for ID? Are you afraid to say these things on UD? Are you afraid of the religious kooks there like you're afraid of the clown?

    "ID is primarily concerned with ORIGINS."

    Whoops, there you go again, admitting that ID is IDC and that creation = origins.

    "Also the debate is about conducting scientific research and being allowed to reach a design inference based on the data."

    Being allowed?? Who's stopping you or anyone else?

    Oh, and scientific research is what ID (IDC) supporters ought to be doing, instead of just spewing lies and religious, delusional, untestable nonsense and expecting rational people to take them seriously.

    Don't you just hate it when your own words come back to haunt you Joe?

     
  • At 2:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "ID is not Creation"

    It isn't.

    the whole tard
    Then how can ID be about origins?

    What does that have to do with ID being Creation? Are you admitting that you are fucking stupid?

    Were all origins strictly materialistic?

    That is what is being debated you moron.

    Then why do ID proponents on Uncommon Descent constantly argue that the christian god is the specific designer?

    That is their PERSONAL OPINION. Dembski says it doesn't have to be.

    Why don't you tell them ID isn't about a designer, and isn't about a god or gods or religion or supernatural things, etc.?

    They already know. It is you who is the demented fuck.

    Exactly what is designed and what is not?

    That is what science is for moron. We have the methodology to determine such things.

    Then why aren't you fighting to the death with ALL the religious zealots on UD who constantly make ID into a religious argument?

    That is just your imagination- you twisted freak.

    "And again IDC exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant."

    IDC stands for intelligent design creationism.

    Yes and that only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

    'Origins and 'creation' are the same thing in ID or religion speak. You say ID is about origins but not about creation. If organisms weren't created, how did they originate Joe? By strictly materialistic means?

    Creation has a specific definition and is based on the Bible.

    And by the way, have you ever said those words on UD?

    Yes I have. Others have also.

    "But anyway ID is based on observation and experience. It can be tested."

    Then test it on a variety of living and nonliving things in nature and show exactly how you did the tests.

    Already done.

     
  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    the whole tard:
    So, you contend then that the universe/nature was created.

    Like my computer was created, ie it was designed.

    That its origins were not materialistic.

    Natural processes only exist in nature and cannot account for its origins. And science says it had an origin- meaning something CREATED it- even in your scenario which means you are a materialistic creationist.

    "So just as the origin of life is kept separate from the theory of evolution ID keeps those questions separate from the detection and study of the design."

    ID keeps them separate??

    That is what Dembski said in "No Free Lunch". Again you expose your ignorance.

    Was that the plan?

    The arguments on UD (and elsewhere) for ID are thoroughly theological in nature Joe.

    Liar.

    OK now on the word "origins"- even in your scenario living organisms had an origin, meaning they were created, meaning your position is creation- that is by your "logic".

    But anyways thanks for exposing your ignorance, dishonesty and stupidity.

     
  • At 2:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here ya go you ignorant piece of shit:

    Intelligent Design and Creationism- refuting the nonsense.

     
  • At 7:57 PM, Blogger Tracy said…

    Joe, pumpkin...

    The link in your post at 2:54 is five years old, and most of the links in that post are to a dead web site.

    And you presume to call others ignorant. You can't find your dick with a map and a flashlight.

     
  • At 8:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tracy, babes, you can't understand normal thinking.

    Strange how your mother has no problem finding my dick...

     
  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger Lisa said…

    Interesting that you are so polite and subordinate at Uncommon Descent and so profane and combative here.

     
  • At 7:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This is my place. When people, like you, come to my place and shit, seeing I can't dope-slap you, I do what I can. My blog- I deal with the trash in my way.

    Over on UD they just ban the assholes. They clean up their trash in their own way.

    And I have been reminded many times to leave their trash alone- play with it if that amuses me but don't take it too far.

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    But mostly I just observe their issues.
    No doubt from the bushes.

     
  • At 8:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Exactly- I bury my face in their bushes.

    What do you do- talk to their bushes? Didn't you know that those lips aren't made for conversation?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home