Evolution, the Thing vs Evolution, the Theory

-
Evolution- the thing- defining “evolution”:

Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.
Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10

Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. That is evolution, the thing, in a nutshell.

OTOH there is evolution, the theory, which is about how that thing took/ takes place. For example:

A majority of biologists subscribe in one form or another to the main tenets of the theory, first proposed by Charles Darwin, that biological evolution is the outcome of accidentally arising genetic variations passively screened by natural selection according to the ability of the variants to survive and reproduce progeny under prevailing environmental conditions.- Christian de Duve in Mysteries of Life: Is there “Something Else”?

That is, according to the theory of evolution the different allele frequencies, different functional multi-part systems, different body parts and different body plans arise via accumulations of genetic accidents. These genetic accidents accumulate through natural selection, random genetic drift, and just because (ie chance/ luck).


The point being is that it is obviously OK to accept evolution, the thing and question the vercity of evolution, the theory. As Stephen C Meyer said Intelligent Design is an alternative to evolution, the theory all the while accepting evolution, the thing.

Unfortunately evolutionists don't seem to be able to grasp any of that. Sad really...

"It 'looks like' a transitional"!~ Tiktaalik

-
Saying "it looks designed" isn't good enough to get mainstream scientists to check into that possibility but saying "it looks like a transitional" is all that is required as evidence for universal common descent. Typical double-standard.

"It looks like a transitional" is all evotards have when it comes to Tiktaalik because it was found millions of years AFTER the alleged transition took place.

Unfortunately for the evotard minions they still don't have any genetic evidence that they can use to link to the transformations required for fish to move onto land.

OgreMKV, aka Kevin R McCarthy, STILL Choking on Tiktaalik

-
Well McCarthy is finally reading "Your Inner Fish" and he still thinks it is a successful prediction fulfilled.

You are a moron Kevin as tetrapods were discovered in strata some 20-25 million years older than the strata that tiktaalik was found in. That means terapods already existed when tiktaalik was around which means it isn't an transitional.

You do not go looking for a transitional form AFTER the transition already occurred.

What I said befoe:

Tiktaalik is still being used as a successful prediction of something. I know it was supposed to be a successful prediction of universal common descent because it is A) Allegedly a transitional form between fish and tetrapods and B) It was found in the "correct" strata because allegedly no evidence of tetrapods before 385 million yeqars ago- plenty of fish though and plenty of evidence for tetrapods around 365 million years ago- Tiktaalik was allegedly found in strata about 375 million years old- Shubin said that is the strata he looked in because of the 365-385 range already bracketed by existing data.

The thinking was tetrapods existed 365 mya and fish existed 385 mya, so the transition happened sometime in that 20 million years.

Sounds very reasonable. And when they looked they found Tiktaalik and all was good.

Then along comes another find that put the earliest tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago.

Now had this find preceded Tiktaalik then Shubin et al. would not have been looking for the transitional after the transition had occurred- that doesn't make any sense. And that is why it is a failed prediction- the transition occurred some 25 million years before, Shubin et al., were looking in the wrong strata.

That said Tiktaalik is still an interesting find, something tha no on else had ever found and it adds to our knowledge base of organisms that once existed. But that is all it does.

Adding Entities- What is the Purpose?

-
Yesterday I posted a quote by Sir Isaac Newton stating the first rule of science:

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."- Sir Isaac Newton

Now why would we add entities? Well for one because they are required. Ya see one of the three basic questions that science asks is "How did it come to be this way"- "it" being the thing being investigating. It is why archaeologists add a designer when they determine they are looking at an artifact- it changes everything!

Adding a designer is the difference between geology and archaeology- IOW it makes a huge difference as it changes everything.

With biology Richard Dawkins and others have weighed in and correctly stated that we would be looking at a totally different type of biology- that alone is huge.

So there you have it- why we add entities-> requirement and it changes the investigation.

Sir Isaac Newton, et al., Support the EF- OM Chokes on it

-

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."- Sir Isaac Newton

The explanatory filter (EF) is a process for doing exactly that a it starts with the minimum (entitites) and then keeps adding them as required.

That is why the EF is the process used to refute any given design inference.

Why the Explanatory Filter is Standard Operating Procedure

-
EvoTards are so clueless. Out of one side of their mouths they summon Occam's Razor- don't add unnecessary entitities. Yet out of the other side of their ass they say that the Explanatory Filter (EF) is useless and is not standard operating procedure. However the EF is how you go about figuring what was required to bring about the observed result! IOW the EF is how you determine what gets sliced off by the razor and what is required to produce the observed result.

Also, as I have been saying, the EF is the process you would use to try to refute any given design inference.

That said to determine arson given a fire scene the investigator has to eliminate necessity and chance before looking into arson. A homicide is not determined just given a dead body- there has to be evidence of foul play so FIRST necessity and chance must be eliminated.

The problem is I have explaned all of this and the evotardgasms still spew every time I say the the EF is SOP. And I am sure I will evotards messing up this thread also because they are just plain ignorant of how to conduct an investigation.

The Design Inference- How It Works- Revisited

-
This is a repost from feb 8, 2011:

So much confusion over such a simple concept- determining design in a natural world. This is all about answering one of science's three basic questions- "How did it come to be this way?".

Intelligent Design is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:

"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

He goes on to say:

” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

That said we have the explanatory filter to help us determine the cause of the effect we are investigating.

On to the Explanatory Filter:

The (design) explanatory filter is a standard operating procedure used for detecting basic origins of cause. It or some reasonable facsimile is used when a dead body turns up or a fire is reported. With the dead body we want to determine if it was a natural death, an accident, a suicide or a homicide (what caused the death?) and in with the fire, the investigator wants to know how it started- arson, negligence, accident or natural causes, i.e. lightning, lava, meteorite, etc. Only through investigation can those not present hope to know about it.

When investigating/ researching/ studying an object/ event/ structure, we need to know one of three things in order to determine how it happened:

1. Did it have to happen?
2. Did it happen by accident?
3. Did an intelligent agent cause it to happen?

A fire is investigated before an arson is.

First we must make this clarification by Wm. Dembski:

”When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. For determining that something is not designed, the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion. False negatives are a problem for the Explanatory Filter.
This problem of false negatives, however, is endemic to detecting intelligent causes. One difficulty is that intelligent causes can mimic law and chance, thereby rendering their actions indistinguishable from these unintelligent causes. It takes an intelligent cause to know an intelligent cause, but if we don't know enough, we'll miss it.”

This is why further investigation is always a good thing. Initial inferences can either be confirmed or falsified by further research.
Intelligent causes always entail intent. Natural causes never do.

(page 13 of No Free Lunch shows the EF flowchart. It can also be found on page 37 of The Design Inference, page 182 of Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, and page 88 of The Design Revolution)

The flowchart for the EF is set up so that there are 3 decision nodes, each node capable only of a Yes or No decision. As are all filters it is eliminative. It eliminates via consideration/ examination.

START
↓
CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes

COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes

SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes

Design


The event/ object/ phenomena in question is what we start with. Then we ask, in sequence, those 3 questions from above- 1st Did this event/ phenomena/ object have to happen? IOW is this the result of the laws of nature, regularity, or some other pre-determining (natural) factors? If it is then we don’t infer design with what we have. If it isn’t then we ask about the likely-hood of it coming about by some chance/ coincidence? Chance events do happen all the time, and absent some blatant design marker, we must take into account the number of factors required to bring it about. The more factors the more complex it is. The more parts involved the more complex it is.

By getting to the final decision node where we separate that which is merely complex from intentional design (an event/ object that has a small probability of occurring by chance and fits a specified pattern), means we have looked into the possibility of X to have occurred by other means. May we have dismissed/ eliminated some too soon? In the realm of anything is possible, possibly. However not only is it impractical to attempt every possible, but by doing so we would no longer have a design inference. By eliminating every possible other cause design would be a given. What we are looking for is a reasonable inference, not proof. IOW we only have to eliminate every possible scenario if we want absolute proof. We already understand that people who ask that of the EF are not interested in science.

It took our current understanding in order to make it to that, the final decision node and it takes our current understanding to make the inference. Future knowledge will either confirm or falsify the inference. The research does not and was never meant to stop at the last node. Just knowing something was the result of intentional design offers no more about it. IOW design detection is the first step in the two step process- detection and understanding of the design. Just because the answer is 42* that doesn’t tell us what was on the left-hand side of the equal sign.

"Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.

In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education

IOW the design inference is all about our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

We do not infer that every death is a homicide nor every rock an artifct. Parsimony- no need to add entities and the design inference is all about requirements, as in is agency involvement required or not?

Threfor to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce it.

Yet addled tards behaving cowardly attack ID and IDists because the only way to "support" their position is to use brute force to rid the world of all alternatives.




(*Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference)

OM Sez That OgreMKV, aka Kevn R McCarthy, Does NOT Hold to the Theory of Evolution!

-
EvoTards are making some strange and unsupported claims these days. First they tell me that I am presenting a strawman version of the theory of evolution. Yet when I provide the references that support my position- references from respected evolutionary biologists- they run away.

Now I have OM caught in the following nonsense:

I had asked:

Are you saying Ogre holds a position that is contrary to the theory of evolution? (because I claim OgreMKV holds to the theory of evolution)

OM sez:

No, he holds a position that is contrary to the one that you claim he holds.

My claim is that he holds to the current theory of evolution which posits divergence due to different accumulations of genetic accidents.

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Still Lying Out of His Ass

-
Typical evotard, this Kevin R McCarthy. Gets his ass handed to him in a debate and then continues to lie about me. For example, his latest lie:

You know, Joe actually has a point.

There is no evidence for evolution*.

* Well, his version of evolution that actually has no relationship with any real version or theory of evolution.

1- I have NEVER claimed there isn't any evidence for evolution

AND

2- The version of the theory of evolution I talk about is the same as all the evolutionary experts. Meaning Kevin R. McCarthy, aka OgreMKV is a lying cowardly loser.

More Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks- the (proton translocating) ATP Synthase

-
The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.

How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function.

ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design.

Technical Glitch Fixed- Some Posts Were Lost

-
OK blogger engineers resolved the technical issues with blogger but all posts since Wednesday late afternoon have been lost.

Thank you and good day...

Kevin R McCarthy, aka OgreMKV, Forced to Misquote Me to Make his "Point"

-
Kevin R McCarthy has proved to be a low-life loser and the following is the evidence-

I said:

Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position with POSITIVE evidence?

And McCarthy changed it to:

Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position [evolution] with POSITIVE evidence?

The two are NOT the same. If Kevin was honest, which he isn't, he would have posted:

Why is it you have to attack ID with your ignorance when all it takes to refute ID is to actually step up and support your position [blind watchmaker evolution] with POSITIVE evidence?

However Kevin is a proven equivocating intellectual coward so he has to make shit up. Such is the lowlife of an evotard...

Evidence that the Theory of Evolution has Nothing (Mocking Ogre)

-
In spite of all the rhetoric* from evo proponents, there is nothing to the theory of evolution. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

How do I know they have nothing?

It’s really very simple. Read lots of evo proponents and supporters. Read lots of their writing.

What do you not see?

Think about it for a second… as prolific writers as many of that group are, don’t you think that if they had anything that actually supported the theory of evolution, any research data, any lab experiments, anything, that they would be trumpeting it as loudly and as often as possible?

Every post, every comment one every blog, every signature would have the evidence and links to it.

And that’s the one thing you don’t see in any evo writing. None of it. Oh sure, they talk about maths and sciency sounding words and maybe hash out some philosophical implications, but they don’t have any data. None.

They don’t have any tests. They don’t have anything.

After almost two centuries, there is still nothing that any evo proponent can point to and say, “See, this data indicates blind watchmaker evolution, because this value of this experiment is x, where a value of y would indicate evolution.”

It really is as simple as that.

(mocking ogre)

Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution Support Closing

-
Well this went exactly as expected- Ogre refused to provide a definition of "evolution"- most likely because he is an intellectual coward and then quote mines in order to make his "point".

I did provide defintions of "evolution" from accepted authorities and each of those definitions support my claim that ID is not anti-evolution. Heck my opponent even provided the words of the ID leadership which proves ID is not anti-evolution rather ID argues against one very narrow definition of evolution- that all of life's diversity arose via an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie the blind watchmaker thesis.

Every IDist says that. Dr Behe testified to that as well as testifying, under oath, that ID is not anti-evolution. He did NOT get brought up on perjury charges.

What else has Dr Behe said:

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."- Dr Michael Behe

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes 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 that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
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

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

So what we have is Ogre ignoring the evidence because he is willfully ignorant and pressing on regardless.

I should have known better than to try to have an unmoderated debate with a known intellectual coward.

My bad but the evidence still stands and the evidence proves that ID is not anti-evolution and that fact cannot change even though my opponent can pound the table.

What Is Natural Selection?

-
Natural selection is nothing more than differential reproduction due to heritable variation. Differential reproduction just means that some will (may) out-reproduce others. And if that differential reproduction is due to some heritable variation then you have natural selection. The heritable variation doesn't even have to be genetic as behavioral characteristics can be passed down also.

And all of that depends on the environment as what is beneficial or working good enough in one environment may not be beneficial nor working good enough in another environment.

And that brings us to another point- whatever works "good enough" gets kept as natural selection basically eliminates that which doesn't work good enough.

Does natural selection have a direction? Only if survivability is a direction.

Wikipedia Halts EvoTard Personal Attacks

-
On May 1, 2001 OM posted a bit of lying diatribe about me on the Stratus Technologies Wikipedia site.

On May 2nd I read it and deleted it. Then on may 4th the same lying diatribe appeared again and I deleted it, again.

This went on for a few times and I was about to stop deleting and instead post a response pointing out that we have an anonymous internet coward making allegations against me and backing them up by linking to another anonymous internet coward but someone stepped in and squashed the evotard clusterfuck.

You didn't really think that you were going to get away with doing that did you?

EvoTards, the missing link between shit and sea slugs. No offense to either shit or sea slugs.

Intelligent Design Evolution vs Darwinian and neo-Darwinian Evolution

-
I thought this was obvious but here goes- IDE vs DE/ NDE-

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Cause and effect relationships- the processes we observe in the present is the key to the past.

Therefor if it was ever demonstrated that living organisms can be reduced to chemistry and physics (as OgreMKV puts it) Intelligent Design would be falsified:

In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex
system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”- Dr Michael Behe

And living organisms are the top of the IC mountain.

We observe genetic accidents breaking things not constructing useful, functional, multi-part systems.

But anyway how can we test DE/ NDE?

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?

David Kellogg Proves That He is a Clueless Tard

-
David Kellogg chimes in on the debate:

According to Joe, the whole debate is about semantics:

This is just too funny- OgreMKV has conflated "evolution" the word with the theory of evolution.

Thanks for proving that you are totally clueless. I even provided definitions of the word, not the theory. The theory is about the HOW evolution took place. The debate wasn't about that. The debate was about the word- "evolution" and its definition.

There is a huge difference between the two.

All this time we've been arguing over the definition of a word? Where's the science in that?

The science comes later dumbass. FIRST there has to be an agreement of the terms being used and that is what we are trying to sort out with this debate.

And obviously both you and OgreMKV are totally clueless.

BTW according to Richard Dawkins if biological organisms are the result of God or a designer ten we are looking at a totally different type of biology. IOW obviously it is more than semantics.

OgreMKV Chokes on Definitions of Evolution and then Lies About it

-
Ogre sez:

Evolution excludes design. There is no version of evolutionary theory that supports any design. It’s that simple. Review the definitions of evolution that Joe provided in his opening. Do any of them say anything about ‘design’? No, they are purely based on chemistry, physics, and biology (“materialistic” according to Joe). Therefore evolution is against ID, an alternative to ID, anti-ID if you will.

Let's look at those definitions. I bet there isn't anything that excludes design nor promotes purely chemistry, physics and biology (whatever that means):

Defining “evolution”:

Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.
Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10

Nope, not one word about accumulating genetic accidents producing anything. Not one word about only physics, chemistry and biology being all that is required. Nothing at all that supports what OgreMKV stated. And more importantly nothing that excludes design.

You lied Ogre.

OgreMKV Chokes and Conflates "Evolution" the Word with the Theory (of Evolution)

-
This is just too funny- OgreMKV has conflated "evolution" the word with the theory of evolution.

Thanks for proving that you are totally clueless. I even provided definitions of the word, not the theory. The theory is about the HOW evolution took place. The debate wasn't about that. The debate was about the word- "evolution" and its definition.

There is a huge difference between the two.

Intelligent Design is Anti-Evolution (support rebuttal)

-
Joe, if you were banned from my blog, then how come we’re having this debate? And how come you can still post here?

I have no quibble with the definitions of evolution that Joe presented. They are all reasonable.

Joe, then ignores the definitions of Intelligent Design as present on the various websites that support ID and instead jumps straight to a quote from Behe. The problem is that Behe admits that he is not all of ID. He also has some, shall we say, issues with maintaining a consistent story.

Next we have Dembski and Wells quoted.

ID precludes 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 that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.

So ID thinks there are limits, yet they have never (to my knowledge) said what those limits are or why they exist. Evolution says that there are limits, but those limits are only constrained by the evolutionary history of the organism (in other words, a population of cats, no matter how long you let them breed, will never, ever produce a bird).

So, in principle, ID and evolution are OK with each other here. However, in practice, they are not.

Here’s the next quote from Dembski that Joe uses:

The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation.

But that’s not correct; at least it’s not correct with the prevailing view of evolution that new species and novelties can come about without intelligence. If, Demsbki (and Joe for that matter), think that biological novelties require an intelligence, then they should examine the Scottish fold breed of cat. It’s a novel structure, novel mutation, simple dominant allele, no designer seen. In fact, I predict (this is how science works) that if you examined the genes between siblings (one with the fold and one without), then you could show which gene contains the novel mutation. I further predict that you could back trace that novel gene to find the mutation and I further predict that the allele in question would result from a known type of mutation that is perfectly reasonable from an evolution point of view.

No designer required. Except that IDists will insist there was a designer there.

ID says that biological novelty cannot come about except by a designer. Evolutionary theory says biological novelty can come about without a designer. ID and evolution are opposites. They can’t both be correct. They are rivals. The very definition of ‘anti-‘.

It’s really funny how Joe’s own opening support the ‘anti-‘view more than the ‘not anti-‘view.

The next quote that Joe uses continues in the same vein.

ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design;

Evolution excludes design. There is no version of evolutionary theory that supports any design. It’s that simple. Review the definitions of evolution that Joe provided in his opening. Do any of them say anything about ‘design’? No, they are purely based on chemistry, physics, and biology (“materialistic” according to Joe). Therefore evolution is against ID, an alternative to ID, anti-ID if you will.

Whether evolution is true or ID is true is immaterial to the discussion here. I want to make that point clear. We’re not actually discussing the validity of Intelligent Design or Evolution and any attempt to do so, is automatically wrong. This discussion is about whether the notion of Intelligent Design is anti-evolution.

Joe thinks that Intelligent Design is OK with Common Descent and mutation and differential reproduction and horizontal gene transfer. Then, the very next statement is a quote from Dembski (not cited) that I will copy here:

As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)

Wait, I thought you said that ID was OK with all of that stuff. It seems ID is OK with natural selection as long as the designer is doing the selecting. ID is OK with random variation, as long as the random variation is front-loaded by the designer. ID is OK with mutation, as long as the mutations are hand selected by the designer.

In other words, ID is OK with all of the aspects of evolution, but it’s not OK that it happens naturally without a designer being present. At least, that’s what I get out of it.

Here’s the difference (and this is a critical point here):

Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.

Gould, Stephen J., Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Ballantine Publishing Group, NY, 1999) (my emphasis)

That’s it. That’s the whole discussion in a nutshell. Materialist evolution says God wasn’t involved in evolutionary processes. ID says God (excuse me, a designer) was involved (see my quotes from Dembski in my opening statement).

Intelligent Design would be OK with evolution if everyone would just admit that God is behind the whole thing. That’s why Intelligent Design is indeed, anti-evolution. ID cannot, will not admit that purely natural forces (chemistry and physics) are responsible for the diversity of life around us today.

Even those that may be materialistic evolution proponents can freely believe in the god of their choice. There is nothing in evolution (or any science) that says you can’t believe whatever you want. However, if you want to get into science, then you must support your statements with evidence.

Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. (I assume Joe’s emphasis.)

Since Joe pretty much described the entirety of the Theory of Biological Evolution (barring drift, founder effect, epigenetics, etc) previously, then ID is Ok with all of that. The only thing ID wants to talk about is the “mechanisms”.

Let me requote from Behe here (as speaking under oath in a court of law)

Q. And before we leave the blood clotting system, can you just remind the Court the mechanism by which intelligent design creates the blood clotting system?

A. Well, as I mentioned before, intelligent design does not say, a mechanism, but what it does say is, one important factor in the production of systems, and that is that, at some point in the pathway, intelligence was involved.

Dover Trial Testimony – A = Dr. Michael Behe

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html

So the same guy who describes ID as “just argues about the mechanisms” has told a federal judge that “intelligent design does not say, a mechanism.

For some reason, I am reminded of a classic children’s game. “You sank my battleship.”

Rumor has it that Joe will use another set of Behe’s testimony from the Kitzmiller/Dover trial (I keep calling it Dover, it’s really the Kitzmiller Trial). And that this is what Michael Behe (A) wrote in Of Panda’s and People.

Q Now, you say you would have written it differently. Is there another reference or another section in Pandas that you could direct us to to emphasize that point?

A Yes. I wrote the section at the end of Pandas which is discussing blood clotting. And on page 144 of the text there’s a section entitled “A Characteristic of Intelligent Design.” And it begins, “Why is the blood clotting system an example of intelligent design? The ordering of independent pieces into a coherent whole to accomplish a purpose which is beyond any single component of the system is characteristic of intelligence.”

Q And why did you direct us to that particular section?

A Because I think it more clearly conveys the central idea of intelligent design, which is the purposeful arrangement of parts.

Q Do you see that then as a, perhaps a better characterization, or more accurate characterization of intelligent design?

A Yes, I like this a lot better

OK, Behe likes that definition of ID better. That’s fine. He can. I don’t like using ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’. That’s OK too.

“Intelligent Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts.” There is nothing about a mechanism in there. There is nothing about information in there. There is nothing about the designer in there. So, you might like this better Joe, but how does it help you?

It doesn’t. It’s just another definition of ID that doesn’t actually mean anything. There’s no definition of parts (proteins, amino acids, alleles, genes, collections of proteins???). There’s no definition of purposeful (non-coding DNA isn’t designed? What’s the purpose? How do you know?)

It’s just another way for Behe to avoid actually having to do anything like test or support ID and to try to avoid getting in trouble with the court.

I’ll begin the end with one last quote from Joe’s opening.

Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.

Of course you can’t Joe, because ‘materialistic evolution’ is the exact same thing as ‘evolution’. The defining characteristic of ‘materialistic evolution’ vs. ‘deistic evolution’ vs. ‘evolution’ is not evolution. It’s god.

Joe and my readers, look very carefully at what the various ID proponents have said, both in my opening and Joe’s opening.

If ID is perfectly fine with every part of evolution, as Joe says, then why are virtually all ID arguments, anti-evolution arguments? If ID is perfectly fine with every part of evolution, then why does Joe say “to disprove ID, you have to prove evolution” (paraphrase)?

The answer is that assumption is wrong. Intelligent Design is NOT fine with evolution. In fact, it is anti-evolution.

original here

Rebutting OgreMKV- A Response to "Intelligent Design is Anti-Evolution"

-

Before I get started I wanted to thank OgreMKV for agreeing to move up the date to release our rebuttals.

Rebutting Ogre-

Strange that in a debate on whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution, OgreMKV refused to provide any definitions of “evolution”. Without saying what “evolution” is you cannot say that ID is anti-evolution, because you can just move the goal-posts as it suites you.
And also I take it that OgreMKV doesn’t understand how to debate or he wouldn’t have referenced IDists who agree with everything in my opening post.

In his opening OgreMKV stated:

Personally, I would prefer to be able to present data and facts and compare them with other data and facts and get an actual, logical, testable answer.

Well we can’t do that until we are clear on what each other’s position is. You seem to have a mental block about Intelligent design and evolution so we must first address that and only then can we move on. Also I presented data and facts and we will see how you deal with those. My bet is that you are going to choke on it.

Next OgreMVK rants about a definition for Intelligent Design- that would be required if the debate was on “What is Intelligent Design”- however it isn’t. The debate is Intelligent Design’s relationship with evolution.

My opponent’s responsibility here is to show that a single coherent and consistent definition of Intelligent Design exists.

Actually my responsibility is to show that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution and I have done just that (and you helped).

So Ogre produces a definition of ID and says:

Wait, I thought ID wasn’t anti-evolution. Natural selection is a part of evolution. Most would say that it’s a major part of any evolutionary theory. Yet, Intelligent Design, as found on Uncommon Descent (a blog “Serving the Intelligent Design Community”), is defined as being the opposite of or opposing natural selection.

The definition didn’t say natural selection didn’t exist. It said it couldn’t account for certain features. As I have said- you have some sort of mental issue.

Next stop:

What really fun about all this is I will not undertake to define evolution (as my opponent desperately wants me to, so he can attack that). I will use only the words and statements of the proponents of Intelligent Design. They are the ones who lead the movement. They are the ones who cannot decide on a definition of Intelligent Design or even what ID is supposed to say, do, or be.

And guess what? I used the words and statements of the ID leadership. And the words and statements you used also support my claim. Thank you. (by providing quotes that show Intelligent Design is anti- DARWINIAN/ NEO-DARWINIAN evolution only!)

As a matter of fact anyone who reads Dr Behe’s testimony will see he agrees with what I said in my opening post. Dr Behe’s testimony starts here- be sure to read it all.

After that he references Barbara Forrest- an atheist on an agenda. Too bad the publisher of the book was barred from the trial. It’s the only way people like her can “win”- by not having an opponent to correct her nonsense (Darn! Due Process Summarily Denied; Lost the Very First Lawsuit We Were Never In). Also she took the “definition” from a rough draft, not a released version of the book.

Using a released version of the book the quote referred to the fossil record and is supported by (the theory of) punctuated equilibrium.
But anyway Dr Behe weighed in on that quote also:

Dr Behe = A Q= pro-ID lawyer

Q I would like to direct your attention to page 99, please. I would like to read to you and oft-quoted passage in this case thus far. If you’ll look at the bottom on page 99, it’s going to continue onto 100 as well. It says, quote, Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appeared in the record with their distinctive features intact and apparently fully functional rather than gradual development.

And I would like to get your reaction to that section?

A- Well, it says — it says that some scientists have arrived at this view. I think that’s a way of saying that this is a matter of disagreement and dispute.

I certainly do not think that intelligent design means that a feature has to appear abruptly. And I — I certainly would have written this differently if I had done so.


Q Now, you say you would have written it differently. Is there another reference or another section in Pandas that you could direct us to to emphasize that point?


A Yes. I wrote the section at the end of Pandas which is discussing blood clotting. And on page 144 of the text there’s a section entitled “A Characteristic of Intelligent Design.” And it begins, “Why is the blood clotting system an example of intelligent design? The ordering of independent pieces into a coherent whole to accomplish a purpose which is beyond any single component of the system is characteristic of intelligence.”


Q And why did you direct us to that particular section?


A Because I think it more clearly conveys the central idea of intelligent design, which is the purposeful arrangement of parts.


Q Do you see that then as a, perhaps a better characterization, or more accurate characterization of intelligent design?


A Yes, I like this a lot better.

Despite the ruling there still isn’t any evidence that demonstrates that an accumulation of genetic accidents (the proposed evolutionary mechanism) can construct a useful and functional multi-part system but there is plenty of evidence they can break them.


But anyway OgreMKV says the following about the definition Forrest read:

Since parts of evolutionary theory states that life did not begin abruptly and that distinctive features were not intact when a new species was specially created (indeed that no new species were specially created), then this flies in the face of evolution.

Unfortunately there isn’t any part of evolutionary theory that deals with the origin of life. The theory of evolution is silent on that topic:

Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. abiogenesis and evolution

See also Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”

And seeing OgreMKV refused to provide a definition of “evolution” he can’t say anything about it.

Later on Ogre says:

Yet, evolution is not allowed to have multiple definitions (i.e. a fact AND a theory, historical AND predictive, experimental AND observational), but ID is allowed to do this.

That is just an outright lie. The problem is there are MANY definitions of evolution and evolutionists use that to equivocate. Meaning while talking about one definition of evolution they will apply that to all definitions. Dr Behe talks about that in his testimony:

Q. Has it been your experience that supporters of Darwin's theory of evolution and opponents of intelligent design have conflated the evidence for the occurrence of evolution, the change over time, with the evidence for the mechanism of evolution, natural selection?


A. Yes. In my experience many people confuse the various parts of Darwin's theory. They don't make the distinction that Ernst Mayr makes, and people see that there has been change in the world and a lot of people then assume that because there has been change in the world, then it must have been change driven by natural selection. And that's a mistaken conclusion.

(see also The Meanings of Evolution)

And that is followed by more testimony saying that ID is not anti-evolution but argues against Darwinism- ie natural selection and random mutations producing the diversity of life.

But OgreMKV does chime in to expose his cluelessness:

Even if we leave aside the truth of either claim (evolution or ID), the point that Behe is making is that one of the two must be correct and one of the two must be wrong. ID says things are designed. Evolution says they are not. It’s that simple. Since things cannot be both designed and evolved, then ID is anti-evolution.

ONLY Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution say living organisms and all their subsystems are not designed. IOW OgreMKV is guilty of equivocation- equivocating evolution with Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution. When Richard Dawkins wrote his “weasel” program a random sequence of letters evolved into a sentence. It evolved via a targeted search, ie it was designed to evolve.

So you can see things can easily be both designed and evolved. And as a matter of fact things can be designed to evolve! Just look at genetic and evolutionary algorithms- designed to evolve.


OgreMKV says:

So, Michael says ID is not anti-evolution, yet a mere double handful of sentences later he states that “the only focus of intelligent design is on the mechanism of evolution”.

My guess is OgreMKV “learned” about ID from (mis)reading the transcripts of this trial plus whatever “sound bites” he and his ilk could find. It is obvious he hasn’t read any pro-ID literature- or perhaps he did, which would be even more pathetic.

The “mechanism”, as in blind, mindless natural selection and random genetic changes (ie genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes)- including drift, HGT- all random/ chance events that accumulate- vs telic, non-random, goal-oriented processes- the mutations would be directed by the internal programming of the cell just as a computer program directs the flow of bits.

One more note on testimony- when giving testimony the context is important. Each question is not asked in a vacuum. It is all a long continuation. My guess is Ogre is ignorant of the Court process too.


Then OgreMKV abandons the debate to rant about ID and religion- I will respond to that also:

"Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."- Jonathan Wells "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

in "The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:

Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.

He goes on to say:

Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.

But I am sure that will be ignored also...

In his book "Signature in the Cell" Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:

First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not "religion".- page 441 under the heading Not Religion

He goes on say pretty much the same thing I have been saying for years- ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

To sum it all up OgreMKV refused to provide a definition of “evolution” saying he was going to leave it up to the words of statements of IDists- the ID leadership. And the words he and I provided support my claim, that ID is not anti-evolution rather it argues against one very narrow definition of evolution.

There is a lawyer’s adage that says:

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.

If you have the law on your side, pound the law.

And if you have neither, pound the table

So it is interesting that while I have pounded the facts OgreMKV has pounded the table.

My rebuttal will end with a thank you- Thank you OgreMKV for helping make my case.

Dr. Lynn Margulis was taught a Strawman Version of Evolution!

-
That's right, according to Dr Lynn Margulis she was taught a strawman version of the theory of evolution:

I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species.-Dr Lynn Margulis

It looks like IU teaches a strawman version:

Biological Evolution is essentially the process whereby new species arise from earlier species by accumulated changes. IU

And Christian de Duve must also be pushing a strawman:

A majority of biologists subscribe in one form or another to the main tenets of the theory, first proposed by Charles Darwin, that biological evolution is the outcome of accidentally arising genetic variations passively screened by natural selection according to the ability of the variants to survive and reproduce progeny under prevailing environmental conditions.- Christian de Duve in Mysteries of Life: Is there “Something Else”?

Methinks evotards who say I created a strawman are just totally clueless.

Strawman Version of Evolution?

-
On more than one occasion evolutionitwits have accused me of misrepresenting the theory of evolution, ie creating a strawman version to attack.

Oddly enough that every time I have asked for evidence to support such an accusation I get attacked. However sometimes I have been told what the strawman is, ie an accumulation of genetic accidents/ blind, undirecetd chemical processes, is a strawman. Then I find evolutionary biologists who support my claim. Then I get attacked again.

So I will ask again- What is this alleged strawman pertaining to evolution that I have erected?

Or are false accusations the best you have?