Anyway: you're going to teach an ID biology class. You're not going to teach a class that shows the alleged shortcomings of neodarwinian evolution. You're going to teach a class that explains the relationship among the various taxa of organisms (i.e., taxonomy), that explains the fossil record, that explains the biochemical basis for life, etc. Now: aside from the areas of the class that would be identical to an NDE biology class (e.g., the mechanisms of mitosis, meiosis, photosynthesis, the Krebbs cycle, etc.), what would your lesson plan look like? And remember, this is a biology class, not a religion class, so we won't be talking about the Designer's plan for mankind, or any of that stuff.

So…what does the lesson plan look like?

ericmurphy:
Nope. As an investigator, you should know better. Plenty of people have been convicted in criminal court with circumstantial evidence.

LoL!!! Science is NOT done in a court room. Thatnk you for continuing toi expose your scientific illiteracy.

ericmurphy:
The evidence that mammals have evolved from non-mammalian precursors, while circumstantial, is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Until there is some biological/ genetic evidence that demonstrates such a transformation is possible every objective person should have more than a reasonable doubt.

ericmurphy:
Joe, I've already shown you, multiple times, how the whole thing was verified.

That is a lie. I keep up with this stuff so you can't fool me. IF it was verified it would be all over the networks and internet. It isn't.

ericmurphy:
You're still looking for proof, not evidence. You're not going to be satisfied until you can watch a non-mammal evolve into a mammal.

Bye-bye.

Circumstantial = subjective. Science = objective. It is NOT my fault that you can't objectively test the premise.

Nope. As an investigator, you should know better. Plenty of people have been convicted in criminal court with circumstantial evidence. As you no doubt know, the standard in criminal matters is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The evidence that mammals have evolved from non-mammalian precursors, while circumstantial, is "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's got nothing to do with subjectivity. Your doubts are simply not reasonable.

And when you say it's not "verifiable," you're totally wrong.

Then show me how it was verified.

Joe, I've already shown you, multiple times, how the whole thing was verified. You've got evidence from multiple different directions — anatomical, morphological, genetic, paleontological, geological — that all point in the same direction. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself here? Is it because you're repeating yourself?

That is wrong. There isn't ANY genetic/ biological evidence that demonstrates a population of non-mammals can "evolve" into a population of mammals.

Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true, Joe. You're still looking for proof, not evidence. You're not going to be satisfied until you can watch a non-mammal evolve into a mammal.

Transitionals would have patially formed structures/ features- like a partial wing. Alleged intermediates have fully formed features but also have a mix- like a mosaic. However that "mix" could just be exposing a weakness in our classification system.

This is totally wrong. How could an organism "evolve" a partial wing? That's not how evolution works, and if you'd read the articles I provided for you, you would have seen how such arguments are utterly without merit. I really feel like I'm reduced to repeating myself over and over, which to me means you're not listening to anything I say.

So your claim is that ID proponents simply can't get through the peer review process. Can you provide me with a scintilla of evidence that the reasons for that is that everyone is just plain prejudiced against ID? The few papers that have appeared from IDists, peer-reviewed or not, have been absolutely shredded by their critics. Meyers, Dembski, and Behe, just to mention the most obvious.

If you expect me to come up with an exhaustive list of vestigial features and then prove that each one of them — what? — is functionless? Or isn't functionless? — you're going to be waiting a long time. My point, which you would know if you could follow along, is that function or lack thereof of a vestigial feature is argument neither for nor against evolution. Evolution makes no prediction whatsoever whether a vestigial feature has a function or not.

How can it be conclusive when there isn't ANY genetic or biological evidence that demonstrates such a transformation is even possible?

I give up on this, Joe. I've already given you several tens of thousands of words of evidence that organisms can indeed, and in fact certainly have, evolved from earlier precursors. I've given you plenty of evidence specifically that whales evolved from land mammals. No reasonable person believes otherwise. You don't criticize the evidence in any way; you merely deny its existence. That being the case, I'm not sure how to continue the argument.

Circumstantial = subjective. Science = objective. It is NOT my fault that you can't objectively test the premise.

ericmurphy:
And when you say it's not "verifiable," you're totally wrong.

Then show me how it was verified.

ericmurphy:
The evolution of mammals from non-mammals (and reptiles from pre-reptiles, etc.) is confirmed from multiple lines of evidence, not just the fossil record.

That is wrong. There isn't ANY genetic/ biological evidence that demonstrates a population of non-mammals can "evolve" into a population of mammals.

ericmurphy:
Okay, Joe: let's hear what the difference is between "transitional" fossils and "possible intermediates"?

Transitionals would have patially formed structures/ features- like a partial wing. Alleged intermediates have fully formed features but also have a mix- like a mosaic. However that "mix" could just be exposing a weakness in our classification system. Fossils don't come with genomes. And we already know that morphological similarities can came about via convergence.

ericmurphy:
You're right: there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles describing phenomena that could be interpreted to support design (more in a minute about why this doesn't matter). But you might have noticed that essentially none of these peer-reviewed articles were actually written by ID proponents.

That is irrelevant. If the articles were written by ID proponents the articles never would have made it through peer-review.

ericmurphy:
Okay, with that out of the way: you've just named a bunch of vestigial structures. Not all of them are limbs. And what point are you leading up to, exactly?

Can you even follow along? I was responding to your statement:

ericmurphy:
"So, let's see"¦you're looking for evidence that vestigial limbs were once used as"¦limbs?"

ericmurphy:
The evidence that whales evolved from land mammals is conclusive, and it's not just based on the fact that whales have bones that resemble femurs.

How can it be conclusive when there isn't ANY genetic or biological evidence that demonstrates such a transformation is even possible?

I think I found some links that discuss the research Pye refers to (but provides no information about, not even the research institution, to say nothing of the names of the researchers) in his essay on "Carpenter Genes." If these links are indeed discussing the same research (I guess I'll let you be the judge), it looks like Pye didn't just misinterpret the results, he flat out misstated the results. Have a look here, and here (note footnote re Pennisi E. A genomic battle of the sexes. Science. 1998 Sep 25;281(5385):1984-5. Commentary.). But in any event, an explanation was forthcoming, probably long before Pye's 1998 essay came out, along straightforward evolutionary lines. No stake through the heart of darwinian evolution after all.

I'd like to read the Scientific American article on parental imprinting genes as well, but unfortunately their archive only goes back to 1993.

You might want to read my response to Joe G directly above your last one, to see if you still think that ID is somehow a better explanation for the "details" of evolution that NDE is.

Well, I have to admit that I didn't read Pye's article super-closely. It's kind of long, he doesn't provide a link to the research he was interpreting, and I have to say, after looking at the rest of his site, my crank-detection meter was pinging like crazy. But in any event, regardless of what grade you give my reading comprehension, I think you might want to look at the beam in your own eye.

For one thing, I never implied that Pye even mentioned the bible, let alone argued against it (although presumably he would argue against the literal truth of Genesis).

For another, if it's true, as it seems from the quote you pulled, that Pye believes the 1984 research contradicts evolutionary thinking from 1984, 1984 is ancient history when it comes to genetics, which is why I believe the evolutionary biology community has a different interpretation of the results than Pye does. 1984 was over 20 years ago, and if the research Pye cites really did overturn central tenets of neodarwinian evolution, I think everyone would know about it by now. My guess, which is only a guess, since I have yet to read the paper Pye is referring to nor have I read anyone else's interpretation of the results, is that evolutionary biologists have been able to accommodate those results without resort to a wholesale jettisoning of any of the central principles of neodarwinian evolution. After all, the Standard Model of particle physics leaves plenty of questions unanswered, but because the theory is as thoroughly confirmed as it's possible to be, no one seriously thinks the Standard Model will ultimately be tossed out the window and replaced with something entirely different. As I said before, you need to sprint just to keep up with advances in genetics and biology these days, and citing research from 1984 isn't much better than citing research from 1884. Hence my quip about the bible.

Also, I have to take issue with your statement that 1984 is about the time of the intelligent design inference. I honestly don't think ID really has much to add to the debate that William Paley didn't add in 1802, other than a lot of superfluous mathematic symbols.

If Darwin were the sole proponent (or the founder of a minority school) of a particular belief, I think your comment would have more weight. But since the vast, vast majority of evolutionary biologists believe that undirected, unplanned, undesigned mechanisms adequately account for the evolution and diversity of life on earth, I don't imagine that Darwin's personal beliefs and foibles add much weight to arguments on either side of the fence.

Nevertheless, we're still less ignorant than we were 150 years ago.

Of course, which leads us right to intelligent design. We're out of the realm of myth and into the realm of detail - which is real.

But, even assuming that Pye's interpretation of the information is valid, it's possible that Pye might have failed to consider the possibility that the way the developmental embryology works now may be entirely different from how it worked when the original structure developed.

Well, he was talking about relatively recent animals, such as mice. The timing of embryonic development is very precise. Perhaps you are considering that the stop and start instructions are separate, although intimately involved with, the codes for the particular development phase or organ. Also, your idea indicates that evolution has stopped. If evolution is ongoing, and if each genome has dozens and hundreds of these imprinted genes (maybe more) then it does seem to present a problem. How could the original structure develop in the absence of stop start instructions that are now crucial?

Considering the lack of concern by the scientific community about this research, I can only assume that Pye is overinterpreting the results. /blockquote>

I certainly don't share that interpretation. Anyway, I am very intrigured by the idea and would like to learn more.

Well, the bible, for one thing.
I don't think I was lost. I'm talking about the article you pointed to, where he seems to be mostly talking about how the developmental genes research contradicted Mendelian genetics and Darwin's own thoughts about inherited characteristics. I didn't see any mention of any research or currently held beliefs at all.

Eric, the kindest thing I can do is give you a failing grade at reading comprehension. He gives an overview from Darwin to semi-modern ideas of how genetics works as a lead-in to go into detail about this recent research (1984). About half a page, and he does not argue against the Bible. Then the gist:

Until 1984, it was believed that all genetic function operated the same way. If a gene or suite of genes came from Dad's side of the mating process, then those genes managed their own affairs from birth until death. And the same held true for genes coming from Mom's side of the mating. But certain genes turned out to exhibit radical differences, depending on whose side of the mating process they came from. When the female mouse embryos died, it was found that genes vital to their growth had inexplicably never been turned on at all, while still others were never turned off (methylated) and spiraled unchecked into cancers. Even more baffling, the fatal processes in the all-male embryos were entirely different from those in the all-females. The embryos were dying for reasons that were clearly sex-biased. What could it possibly mean?

Imprinted genes were found to be the culprit. Imprinted genes, it turned out, could be expressed by either parent and, incredibly, methylated by the other parent!

Now, maybe he misinterpreted but 1984 science is right within the era of discoveries that leads up to intelligent design inference. You pass a bombshell and focus on some nitpicking over your decision that he was arguing against Darwin's understanding of heredity, which is not what he actually said.

Darwin's own personal foibles or beliefs, rational or irrational, really don't impinge on the validity of a theory based on his research but with an additional 150 years of research on top of it. Criticisms of a proponent of a theory don't amount to a criticism of the theory itself at all.

You know that all other things being equal, you are correct. However, it pays to pay attention to the sad and dreary fact that men are often lead astry by their emotions and desires, sometimes hardly even acknowledging it to themselves. Sure, they construct a logical edifice, but the search for truth is not their real goal, and therefore not their destination.

I'm sure you're right about God not caring at all if someone's an atheist. But if you listen to the religious right in this country you'd certainly get the impression that he cares.

Yes, on this I agree with Darwin. It is a damnable doctrine.

I know what the evidence for the alleged "evolution" of mammals (from non-mammals), reptiles (from non-reptiles) and just about every other alleged lineage. The evidence is circumstantial at best and is not verifiable.

Could you explain to me how any conceivable evidence for the evolution of mammals could be anything other than circumstantial? Could we expect, e.g., eye-witness tesimony?

And when you say it's not "verifiable," you're totally wrong. The evolution of mammals from non-mammals (and reptiles from pre-reptiles, etc.) is confirmed from multiple lines of evidence, not just the fossil record. When you have multiple lines of inquiry all converging on the same explanation, that's what we mean when we say "verified."

Okay, Joe: let's hear what the difference is between "transitional" fossils and "possible intermediates" It sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. And to shut off one possible objection, no paleontologist believes that a particular fossil is actually "transitional" between two taxa, in that it is a direct ancestor of anything actually living today. The odds that any fossil has any descendants still alive today is vanishingly small. A "transitional" fossil is not likely to be an actual "father" or "grandfather"; more likely it is an "uncle" or "cousin."

You're right: there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles describing phenomena that could be interpreted to support design (more in a minute about why this doesn't matter). But you might have noticed that essentially none of these peer-reviewed articles were actually written by ID proponents. In other words, for reasons best known to themselves, ID proponents seem content to take evidence developed by evolutionary biologists and applying their own interpretation — spin, if you will — to evidence that everyone else thinks supports exactly the opposite interpretation.

Okay, with that out of the way: you've just named a bunch of vestigial structures. Not all of them are limbs. And what point are you leading up to, exactly? I'm trying to parse out your statement:

…there isn't any evidence human arms were once used for locomotion except if one assumes that the current history of life is indicative of reality.

Hmm. Well, I do assume that the current history of life (if I'm interpreting what you mean by "current history" correctly) is indicative of reality, so I guess by your statement I'm entitled to believe there's evidence that human arms were once used for locomotion. I'm not sure where you're going with this exactly, but never mind.

It's not true that the only reason one would assume that a whale has a vestigial femur is if one "assumes" it evolved from land mammals. The evidence that whales evolved from land mammals is conclusive, and it's not just based on the fact that whales have bones that resemble femurs. You can't look at each piece of evidence in isolation, Joe. When you see evidence from ten different sources, and they all point in the same direction, it's crazy not to think there's something to that particular direction.

It's like this: the evidence for evolution is so utterly overwhelming, from multiple different lines of inquiry, that it takes deliberate opacity of mind not to see it. Which is why we talk about the fact of evolution. (After all, you claim that even you do not deny that evolution happens.) So what's left? Well, we need to determine exactly what causes evolution. NDE has proposed several, non-exclusive mechanisms for evolution. You've been calling these mechanisms "unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes," and no matter how many times I've shown you evidence demonstrating how wrong you are, you still claim there isn't any evidence that they can drive evolution.

But here's the problem, Joe. Any piece of evidence whatsoever can be used to support the notion that life was designed. Think about it for a moment: can you picture any kind of experiment, observation, inference, that can prove that life was not designed? There's no conceivable way to prove that life wasn't designed, especially if you're assuming that the "designer" isn't restricted to "naturalistic" mechanisms. This is exactly why ID is unfalsifiable. Sure, you can falsify things like the notion that IC structures cannot evolve, or that CSI proves the existence of design, or that the explanatory filter provides a design inference, but you cannot, even in principle, prove that life was not designed.

Hence, ID's final conclusion, that life was designed, is unfalsifiable.

I know what the evidence for the alleged "evolution" of mammals (from non-mammals), reptiles (from non-reptiles) and just about every other alleged lineage. The evidence is circumstantial at best and is not verifiable.

IOW it is evidence (of evolution) based on the assumption (that said evolution occurred).

Transitional fossils- What you guys cal transitionals people like myself would call only possible intermediates. And there is a difference. Also fosils can't tell us anything about a mechainsm. Therefore using fossils cannot help the NDE until the4 biological/ genetic evidence comes to light that shows such transformations are even possible by the mechanism(s) proposed. Right now no one can demonstrate that. And as a matter of fact no one even knows whay makes a species what it is. Until we know that there is no way we can know whether or not such transformations are possible.

As for peer-reviewed articles that support ID the scientific literature has many references to what we observe inside the cell as molecular machines, assembly lines and factories. However there isn't any peer-review articles that demonstrate those molecular machines, assembly lines and factories can come about via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.

So sure I want to go there.

ericmurphy:
So, let's see"¦you're looking for evidence that vestigial limbs were once used as"¦limbs?

Since when did the pelvis become a limb? How about our appendix? Is that also a limb? What about nipples on men? Are nipples also limbs? Are the bones that make up a mammalian inner ear considered limbs to you?

IOW there are plenty of alleged vestigial structures that are not limbs. And even if they are limbs, my arms and a horse's forelimbs are both limbs but both serve different purposes- and there isn't any evidence human arms were once used for locomotion except if one assumes that the current history of life is indicative of reality. The same goes for any alleged "limb" found on whales- the only reason to call it a femur is due to the belief whales evlved from land animals.

I think he's also very, very wrong when he states that modern science is no closer to figuring out how life works than Darwin was, 150 years ago. Darwin didn't even know about genes, for crying out loud!

Yes, our ignorance has only deepened, but at least we now know we are ignorant.

Nevertheless, we're still less ignorant than we were 150 years ago. Everything we don't know now, we didn't know then, either, but we have, in fact, learned some new things in the interim.

Did you read it? If an organ development gets turned on by mom but dad's genes tell it when to stop, then how is that to be coordinated with new mutations?

I didn't read the original research paper, because Pye neglected to provide a link to it, and doing a search for it didn't turn it up either. But, even assuming that Pye's interpretation of the information is valid, it's possible that Pye might have failed to consider the possibility that the way the developmental embryology works now may be entirely different from how it worked when the original structure developed. Considering the lack of concern by the scientific community about this research, I can only assume that Pye is overinterpreting the results. But again, not having access to the original research paper, it's hard for me to guess what the problem might be.

Poking holes in Darwin's thoughts seems to be pretty popular amongst IDists and creationists of all stripes. I wonder if part of the reason for this is that many of the texts they're used to analyzing haven't changed in hundreds of years.

What are you talking about? What texts?

Well, the bible, for one thing. The New Testament hasn't changed noticeably in the last fifteen hundred years, has it? Or have I missed something?

It really makes a critic of evolution look weak when he's criticizing science from the next-to-last century.

You must've got lost in some alley on his website. Perhaps he was going over the whole history. He is up to date.

I don't think I was lost. I'm talking about the article you pointed to, where he seems to be mostly talking about how the developmental genes research contradicted Mendelian genetics and Darwin's own thoughts about inherited characteristics. I didn't see any mention of any research or currently held beliefs at all.

The sad fact is Darwin was afraid to let God exist. He spoke of Christianity's "damnable doctine," in which his atheists father and grandfather would be consigned to hell. If only he knew. God couldn't possibly care less if you're an atheist.

Darwin's own personal foibles or beliefs, rational or irrational, really don't impinge on the validity of a theory based on his research but with an additional 150 years of research on top of it. Criticisms of a proponent of a theory don't amount to a criticism of the theory itself at all.

I'm sure you're right about God not caring at all if someone's an atheist. But if you listen to the religious right in this country you'd certainly get the impression that he cares.