The ID perps stupidly put up this article, just like the Top Six and Luskin's article about what ID is and how it should be defended this
article was ignored by IDiots world-wide, and they just remained
ignorant of what was in it. Behe and Denton had told the rubes the same thing half a decade before (Behe in his responses to his critics and subsequent IDiotic stupidity, and Denton in his second book) but IDiots remained willfully ignorant about it. Even after the Top Six came out
in 2017 Glenn claimed that I was lying about Behe claiming that
Biological evolution was a fact of nature. Really, both Behe and Denton
told the IDiot creationist rubes 2 decades ago that any IDiocy would
have to deal with the fact of biological evolution. Willful ignorance
has been required of IDiots for a long time.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/throwback-thursday-meyer-asks-what-is-this-theory-of-intelligent-design/
In the Meyer's article he tells the usual lies about what IDiocy was and
is and then makes this statement that should have told nearly all
IDiotic type creationists that they had never wanted to be IDiots.
QUOTE:
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based
idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, livings systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory.
Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as
natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing
the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence
without itself being directed by an intelligence.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are
tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the
idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry,
but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.
END QUOTE:
According to Meyer the ID perp's use of the same scientific creationists god-of-the-gaps denial (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) wasn't supposed to be used for just gap denial, but they were trying to fill
the gaps like the origin of life with their designer. Everyone knows
that the ID perps have just used the gap denial the same way that the scientific creationists have used it and no attempts to do anything
positive with them has ever been attempted. The ID scam was just the
name change that it has always been. They have been just more dishonest
than the scientific creationists who used the same junk arguments before them. Readers will note that the IDiotic "textbook" Of Pandas and
People is not mentioned even though the ID perps used to claim that it
could be used to teach ID in the public schools. Meyer wrote the
teacher's notes for the book, Thaxton was the editor, Kenyon was one of
two main authors, and Behe admitted that he was responsible for some of
the writing, but was not credited, and Meyer leaves it out of this
article because this 2005 article was written after the name change,
from creationism to intelligent design that occurred in the book after
the Supreme Court decision in 1987, was exposed in the Dover Court case.
He obviously left it out because it directly challenged his deception,
about ID not being more creationists nonsense, that Meyer had
perpetrated before making the quote above.
Just like what Behe and Denton were more direct about, Meyer is telling
the rubes that they shouldn't expect much to change with any IDiotic science. Biological evolution will still be a fact of nature that will
have to be denied along with any scientific evidence that some designer
had anything to do with the origin of life over 3 billion years ago
(most of the IDiotic creationists in existence are still anti-evolution
and YEC). If the ID perps had been able to produce any IDiotic science
about the origin of life it would have just been more science for the
IDiots to deny. The ID perp's "Big Tent" where all types of
creationists were welcome had always been a Big Lie. Isn't it sad that
the majority of the current support for the ID creationist scam still
comes from young earth Biblical creationists? For over 20 years
intelligent design science has only been used as the bait for the ID
perp's bait and switch scam. All the creationist rubes ever get from
the ID perps is the switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing
to do with the ID science. The ID perps do not run the scam on the
science side of the issue, but the bait and switch is run on the
creationist rubes that believe them.
If Kalk and Bill had understood this junk 18 years ago they would have
quit the ID scam back then. They wouldn't have had to wait for the ID
perps to rub their faces in the fact that they never wanted any ID
science to be produced, by having the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy given to them in their logical order of occurrence in this universe.
Still recommended at the Discovery Institute propaganda site: https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/
No IDiots seem to want to deal with this more recent Luskin article any
more than they wanted to deal with the 2005 Meyer article on the ID creationist scam.
Ron Okimoto
(Just a note about Thunderbird and eternal september. When I copy and
pasted the Discovery Institute link above the Current Biology
Neanderthal link was pasted in instead. Just like before I copy and
pasted the Discovery Institute link, but the previous copy and paste was
put in, instead. Something weird about memory buffers. It did not
happen in that Neanderthal post. The copy and paste happened just fine
for the second link that I pasted in, in that post, but the link that
had been in the memory over night was pasted in instead of the link that
I had just copied. It must be some bug in the news reader.)
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:31:16 AM UTC-7, RonO wrote:God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).
The ID perps stupidly put up this article, just like the Top Six and
Luskin's article about what ID is and how it should be defended this
article was ignored by IDiots world-wide, and they just remained
ignorant of what was in it. Behe and Denton had told the rubes the same
thing half a decade before (Behe in his responses to his critics and
subsequent IDiotic stupidity, and Denton in his second book) but IDiots
remained willfully ignorant about it. Even after the Top Six came out
in 2017 Glenn claimed that I was lying about Behe claiming that
Biological evolution was a fact of nature. Really, both Behe and Denton
told the IDiot creationist rubes 2 decades ago that any IDiocy would
have to deal with the fact of biological evolution. Willful ignorance
has been required of IDiots for a long time.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/throwback-thursday-meyer-asks-what-is-this-theory-of-intelligent-design/
In the Meyer's article he tells the usual lies about what IDiocy was and
is and then makes this statement that should have told nearly all
IDiotic type creationists that they had never wanted to be IDiots.
QUOTE:
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based
idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s
origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.
According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford’s Richard Dawkins,
livings systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a
purpose.” But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is
entirely illusory.
Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as
natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing
the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view,
natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence
without itself being directed by an intelligence.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are
tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best
explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the
idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry,
but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is >> wholly blind and undirected.
END QUOTE:
According to Meyer the ID perp's use of the same scientific creationists
god-of-the-gaps denial (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) wasn't
supposed to be used for just gap denial, but they were trying to fill
the gaps like the origin of life with their designer. Everyone knows
that the ID perps have just used the gap denial the same way that the
scientific creationists have used it and no attempts to do anything
positive with them has ever been attempted. The ID scam was just the
name change that it has always been. They have been just more dishonest
than the scientific creationists who used the same junk arguments before
them. Readers will note that the IDiotic "textbook" Of Pandas and
People is not mentioned even though the ID perps used to claim that it
could be used to teach ID in the public schools. Meyer wrote the
teacher's notes for the book, Thaxton was the editor, Kenyon was one of
two main authors, and Behe admitted that he was responsible for some of
the writing, but was not credited, and Meyer leaves it out of this
article because this 2005 article was written after the name change,
from creationism to intelligent design that occurred in the book after
the Supreme Court decision in 1987, was exposed in the Dover Court case.
He obviously left it out because it directly challenged his deception,
about ID not being more creationists nonsense, that Meyer had
perpetrated before making the quote above.
Just like what Behe and Denton were more direct about, Meyer is telling
the rubes that they shouldn't expect much to change with any IDiotic
science. Biological evolution will still be a fact of nature that will
have to be denied along with any scientific evidence that some designer
had anything to do with the origin of life over 3 billion years ago
(most of the IDiotic creationists in existence are still anti-evolution
and YEC). If the ID perps had been able to produce any IDiotic science
about the origin of life it would have just been more science for the
IDiots to deny. The ID perp's "Big Tent" where all types of
creationists were welcome had always been a Big Lie. Isn't it sad that
the majority of the current support for the ID creationist scam still
comes from young earth Biblical creationists? For over 20 years
intelligent design science has only been used as the bait for the ID
perp's bait and switch scam. All the creationist rubes ever get from
the ID perps is the switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing
to do with the ID science. The ID perps do not run the scam on the
science side of the issue, but the bait and switch is run on the
creationist rubes that believe them.
If Kalk and Bill had understood this junk 18 years ago they would have
quit the ID scam back then. They wouldn't have had to wait for the ID
perps to rub their faces in the fact that they never wanted any ID
science to be produced, by having the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy
given to them in their logical order of occurrence in this universe.
Still recommended at the Discovery Institute propaganda site:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/
No IDiots seem to want to deal with this more recent Luskin article any
more than they wanted to deal with the 2005 Meyer article on the ID
creationist scam.
Ron Okimoto
(Just a note about Thunderbird and eternal september. When I copy and
pasted the Discovery Institute link above the Current Biology
Neanderthal link was pasted in instead. Just like before I copy and
pasted the Discovery Institute link, but the previous copy and paste was
put in, instead. Something weird about memory buffers. It did not
happen in that Neanderthal post. The copy and paste happened just fine
for the second link that I pasted in, in that post, but the link that
had been in the memory over night was pasted in instead of the link that
I had just copied. It must be some bug in the news reader.)
Mike Behe tries to cover, "Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is
However, he was busted by Phil Johnson;recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." 1996, "Starting a Conversation about Evolution" ARN http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
"My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This [Intelligent Design] means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly
"This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy." World Magazine, 30 November 1996Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" (2000).
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." Foreword to "
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." American Family Radio (10 January 2003)design theory that's comparable."
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent
Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006).restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).
The Wedge Document
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
And Dr.Dr. Dembski admits in a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone “Signs of Intelligence,” the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel
On 10/22/2023 11:26 AM, Gary Hurd wrote:God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:31:16?AM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
The ID perps stupidly put up this article, just like the Top Six and
Luskin's article about what ID is and how it should be defended this
article was ignored by IDiots world-wide, and they just remained
ignorant of what was in it. Behe and Denton had told the rubes the same
thing half a decade before (Behe in his responses to his critics and
subsequent IDiotic stupidity, and Denton in his second book) but IDiots
remained willfully ignorant about it. Even after the Top Six came out
in 2017 Glenn claimed that I was lying about Behe claiming that
Biological evolution was a fact of nature. Really, both Behe and Denton
told the IDiot creationist rubes 2 decades ago that any IDiocy would
have to deal with the fact of biological evolution. Willful ignorance
has been required of IDiots for a long time.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/throwback-thursday-meyer-asks-what-is-this-theory-of-intelligent-design/
In the Meyer's article he tells the usual lies about what IDiocy was and >>> is and then makes this statement that should have told nearly all
IDiotic type creationists that they had never wanted to be IDiots.
QUOTE:
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based
idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s
origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.
According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford’s Richard Dawkins,
livings systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a
purpose.” But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is
entirely illusory.
Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as
natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing
the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, >>> natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence
without itself being directed by an intelligence.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are
tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best
explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the
idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry,
but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is >>> wholly blind and undirected.
END QUOTE:
According to Meyer the ID perp's use of the same scientific creationists >>> god-of-the-gaps denial (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) wasn't
supposed to be used for just gap denial, but they were trying to fill
the gaps like the origin of life with their designer. Everyone knows
that the ID perps have just used the gap denial the same way that the
scientific creationists have used it and no attempts to do anything
positive with them has ever been attempted. The ID scam was just the
name change that it has always been. They have been just more dishonest
than the scientific creationists who used the same junk arguments before >>> them. Readers will note that the IDiotic "textbook" Of Pandas and
People is not mentioned even though the ID perps used to claim that it
could be used to teach ID in the public schools. Meyer wrote the
teacher's notes for the book, Thaxton was the editor, Kenyon was one of
two main authors, and Behe admitted that he was responsible for some of
the writing, but was not credited, and Meyer leaves it out of this
article because this 2005 article was written after the name change,
from creationism to intelligent design that occurred in the book after
the Supreme Court decision in 1987, was exposed in the Dover Court case. >>> He obviously left it out because it directly challenged his deception,
about ID not being more creationists nonsense, that Meyer had
perpetrated before making the quote above.
Just like what Behe and Denton were more direct about, Meyer is telling
the rubes that they shouldn't expect much to change with any IDiotic
science. Biological evolution will still be a fact of nature that will
have to be denied along with any scientific evidence that some designer
had anything to do with the origin of life over 3 billion years ago
(most of the IDiotic creationists in existence are still anti-evolution
and YEC). If the ID perps had been able to produce any IDiotic science
about the origin of life it would have just been more science for the
IDiots to deny. The ID perp's "Big Tent" where all types of
creationists were welcome had always been a Big Lie. Isn't it sad that
the majority of the current support for the ID creationist scam still
comes from young earth Biblical creationists? For over 20 years
intelligent design science has only been used as the bait for the ID
perp's bait and switch scam. All the creationist rubes ever get from
the ID perps is the switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing
to do with the ID science. The ID perps do not run the scam on the
science side of the issue, but the bait and switch is run on the
creationist rubes that believe them.
If Kalk and Bill had understood this junk 18 years ago they would have
quit the ID scam back then. They wouldn't have had to wait for the ID
perps to rub their faces in the fact that they never wanted any ID
science to be produced, by having the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy
given to them in their logical order of occurrence in this universe.
Still recommended at the Discovery Institute propaganda site:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/
No IDiots seem to want to deal with this more recent Luskin article any
more than they wanted to deal with the 2005 Meyer article on the ID
creationist scam.
Ron Okimoto
(Just a note about Thunderbird and eternal september. When I copy and
pasted the Discovery Institute link above the Current Biology
Neanderthal link was pasted in instead. Just like before I copy and
pasted the Discovery Institute link, but the previous copy and paste was >>> put in, instead. Something weird about memory buffers. It did not
happen in that Neanderthal post. The copy and paste happened just fine
for the second link that I pasted in, in that post, but the link that
had been in the memory over night was pasted in instead of the link that >>> I had just copied. It must be some bug in the news reader.)
Mike Behe tries to cover, "Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is
tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." 1996, "Starting a Conversation about Evolution" ARN http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
However, he was busted by Phil Johnson;
"My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This [Intelligent Design] means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is
"Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" (2000).
"This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy." World Magazine, 30 November 1996
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." Foreword to
design theory that's comparable."
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." American Family Radio (10 January 2003)
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent
restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006).
The Wedge Document
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
And Dr.Dr. Dembski admits in a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone “Signs of Intelligence,” the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel
I just looked at Behe's wiki page and there no longer seems to be
something about his responses to his critics at the turn of the century
when Behe made it clear that he understood that biological evolution was
a fact of nature.
I found this article written by a couple Biblical creationists warning >IDiotic type anti-evolution creationists that they should be aware that
Behe was not their friend, and they cite several examples of Behe
supporting biological evolution and an old earth.
https://apologeticspress.org/michael-behe-no-friend-of-young-earth-creationists-2555/
Behe may be a pious Catholic, but he isn't an anti-evolution Biblical >creationists like MarkE and Dean. If Behe had ever accomplished the
science that would have demonstrated that some designer designed the >flagellum over a billion years ago (#4 of the Top Six) it would have
just been more science for MarkE and Dean to deny.
Someone should dig up the quote by Dembski when he acknowledged that
natural selection could be the designer that they were observing in
nature. He made the claim a few years before he "retired" from the ID
scam as an abject IDiotic failure. None of Dembski's old junk made the
ID perp's Top Six, so why did they take Dembski back and make him an ID
perp again? They could have used Dembski's salary to fund a post doc
that could scan bacterial genomes looking for Behe's 3 neutral mutations.
Ron Okimoto
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:20:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).
On 10/22/2023 11:26 AM, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:31:16?AM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
The ID perps stupidly put up this article, just like the Top Six and
Luskin's article about what ID is and how it should be defended this
article was ignored by IDiots world-wide, and they just remained
ignorant of what was in it. Behe and Denton had told the rubes the same >>>> thing half a decade before (Behe in his responses to his critics and
subsequent IDiotic stupidity, and Denton in his second book) but IDiots >>>> remained willfully ignorant about it. Even after the Top Six came out
in 2017 Glenn claimed that I was lying about Behe claiming that
Biological evolution was a fact of nature. Really, both Behe and Denton >>>> told the IDiot creationist rubes 2 decades ago that any IDiocy would
have to deal with the fact of biological evolution. Willful ignorance
has been required of IDiots for a long time.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/throwback-thursday-meyer-asks-what-is-this-theory-of-intelligent-design/
In the Meyer's article he tells the usual lies about what IDiocy was and >>>> is and then makes this statement that should have told nearly all
IDiotic type creationists that they had never wanted to be IDiots.
QUOTE:
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based >>>> idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s
origins-one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. >>>> According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford’s Richard Dawkins,
livings systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a
purpose.” But, for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is
entirely illusory.
Why? According to neo-Darwinism, wholly undirected processes such as
natural selection and random mutations are fully capable of producing
the intricate designed-like structures in living systems. In their view, >>>> natural selection can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence
without itself being directed by an intelligence.
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are
tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best
explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the
idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, >>>> but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is >>>> wholly blind and undirected.
END QUOTE:
According to Meyer the ID perp's use of the same scientific creationists >>>> god-of-the-gaps denial (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) wasn't >>>> supposed to be used for just gap denial, but they were trying to fill
the gaps like the origin of life with their designer. Everyone knows
that the ID perps have just used the gap denial the same way that the
scientific creationists have used it and no attempts to do anything
positive with them has ever been attempted. The ID scam was just the
name change that it has always been. They have been just more dishonest >>>> than the scientific creationists who used the same junk arguments before >>>> them. Readers will note that the IDiotic "textbook" Of Pandas and
People is not mentioned even though the ID perps used to claim that it >>>> could be used to teach ID in the public schools. Meyer wrote the
teacher's notes for the book, Thaxton was the editor, Kenyon was one of >>>> two main authors, and Behe admitted that he was responsible for some of >>>> the writing, but was not credited, and Meyer leaves it out of this
article because this 2005 article was written after the name change,
from creationism to intelligent design that occurred in the book after >>>> the Supreme Court decision in 1987, was exposed in the Dover Court case. >>>> He obviously left it out because it directly challenged his deception, >>>> about ID not being more creationists nonsense, that Meyer had
perpetrated before making the quote above.
Just like what Behe and Denton were more direct about, Meyer is telling >>>> the rubes that they shouldn't expect much to change with any IDiotic
science. Biological evolution will still be a fact of nature that will >>>> have to be denied along with any scientific evidence that some designer >>>> had anything to do with the origin of life over 3 billion years ago
(most of the IDiotic creationists in existence are still anti-evolution >>>> and YEC). If the ID perps had been able to produce any IDiotic science >>>> about the origin of life it would have just been more science for the
IDiots to deny. The ID perp's "Big Tent" where all types of
creationists were welcome had always been a Big Lie. Isn't it sad that >>>> the majority of the current support for the ID creationist scam still
comes from young earth Biblical creationists? For over 20 years
intelligent design science has only been used as the bait for the ID
perp's bait and switch scam. All the creationist rubes ever get from
the ID perps is the switch scam that the ID perps tell them has nothing >>>> to do with the ID science. The ID perps do not run the scam on the
science side of the issue, but the bait and switch is run on the
creationist rubes that believe them.
If Kalk and Bill had understood this junk 18 years ago they would have >>>> quit the ID scam back then. They wouldn't have had to wait for the ID
perps to rub their faces in the fact that they never wanted any ID
science to be produced, by having the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy >>>> given to them in their logical order of occurrence in this universe.
Still recommended at the Discovery Institute propaganda site:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/
No IDiots seem to want to deal with this more recent Luskin article any >>>> more than they wanted to deal with the 2005 Meyer article on the ID
creationist scam.
Ron Okimoto
(Just a note about Thunderbird and eternal september. When I copy and
pasted the Discovery Institute link above the Current Biology
Neanderthal link was pasted in instead. Just like before I copy and
pasted the Discovery Institute link, but the previous copy and paste was >>>> put in, instead. Something weird about memory buffers. It did not
happen in that Neanderthal post. The copy and paste happened just fine >>>> for the second link that I pasted in, in that post, but the link that
had been in the memory over night was pasted in instead of the link that >>>> I had just copied. It must be some bug in the news reader.)
Mike Behe tries to cover, "Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is
tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." 1996, "Starting a Conversation about Evolution" ARN http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
However, he was busted by Phil Johnson;
"My colleagues and I speak of "theistic realism" -- or sometimes, "mere creation" --as the defining concept of our movement. This [Intelligent Design] means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is
to "Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science" (2000).
"This [the intelligent design movement] isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy." World Magazine, 30 November 1996
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." Foreword
design theory that's comparable."
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." American Family Radio (10 January 2003)
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent
restated in the idiom of information theory." (“Signs of Intelligence,” 1999, Touchstone magazine).Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006).
The Wedge Document
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
And Dr.Dr. Dembski admits in a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone “Signs of Intelligence,” the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel
I just looked at Behe's wiki page and there no longer seems to be
something about his responses to his critics at the turn of the century
when Behe made it clear that he understood that biological evolution was
a fact of nature.
I found this article written by a couple Biblical creationists warning
IDiotic type anti-evolution creationists that they should be aware that
Behe was not their friend, and they cite several examples of Behe
supporting biological evolution and an old earth.
https://apologeticspress.org/michael-behe-no-friend-of-young-earth-creationists-2555/
Behe may be a pious Catholic, but he isn't an anti-evolution Biblical
creationists like MarkE and Dean. If Behe had ever accomplished the
science that would have demonstrated that some designer designed the
flagellum over a billion years ago (#4 of the Top Six) it would have
just been more science for MarkE and Dean to deny.
Someone should dig up the quote by Dembski when he acknowledged that
natural selection could be the designer that they were observing in
nature. He made the claim a few years before he "retired" from the ID
scam as an abject IDiotic failure. None of Dembski's old junk made the
ID perp's Top Six, so why did they take Dembski back and make him an ID
perp again? They could have used Dembski's salary to fund a post doc
that could scan bacterial genomes looking for Behe's 3 neutral mutations.
Ron Okimoto
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from
what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/22/2023 9:54 PM, jillery wrote:
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from
what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
This is what Behe was claiming about his more recent junk like the whale >devolution from terrestrial mammals. Glenn and Nyikos couldn't get it
that Behe was claiming that this evolution had occurred, and that it
wasn't the type of evolution that his designer would have been expected
to be associated with. It was evolution by breaking things, and Behe >claimed that, that type of evolution would be expected to occur whenever >there was a selective advantage for such a change. If there was a
selective advantage to destroy the function of some gene, it would be >expected to be selected for when it occurred, and deleterious mutations
are more common than change in function mutations that an organism could >use. Behe understood that the whales had evolved from terrestrial
mammals, but they did it in a way that he claimed was not the "good"
type of evolution that his designer would have been able to do.
Behe has no issue with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor. I do
not think that he has claimed that, that evolution was devolution.
Ron Okimoto
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:42:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2023 9:54 PM, jillery wrote:
<massive snip>
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from
what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
This is what Behe was claiming about his more recent junk like the whale
devolution from terrestrial mammals. Glenn and Nyikos couldn't get it
that Behe was claiming that this evolution had occurred, and that it
wasn't the type of evolution that his designer would have been expected
to be associated with. It was evolution by breaking things, and Behe
claimed that, that type of evolution would be expected to occur whenever
there was a selective advantage for such a change. If there was a
selective advantage to destroy the function of some gene, it would be
expected to be selected for when it occurred, and deleterious mutations
are more common than change in function mutations that an organism could
use. Behe understood that the whales had evolved from terrestrial
mammals, but they did it in a way that he claimed was not the "good"
type of evolution that his designer would have been able to do.
Behe has no issue with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor. I do
not think that he has claimed that, that evolution was devolution.
Ron Okimoto
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/>
"In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation and
natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces."
Similar to how Behe insisted IC systems can't evolve, he now insists devolution isn't evolution.
The fact is, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. For purposes of that definition, it doesn't matter how they changed.
Behe's distinction is simply worg.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/23/2023 7:57 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:42:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2023 9:54 PM, jillery wrote:
<massive snip>
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from
what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
This is what Behe was claiming about his more recent junk like the whale >>> devolution from terrestrial mammals. Glenn and Nyikos couldn't get it
that Behe was claiming that this evolution had occurred, and that it
wasn't the type of evolution that his designer would have been expected
to be associated with. It was evolution by breaking things, and Behe
claimed that, that type of evolution would be expected to occur whenever >>> there was a selective advantage for such a change. If there was a
selective advantage to destroy the function of some gene, it would be
expected to be selected for when it occurred, and deleterious mutations
are more common than change in function mutations that an organism could >>> use. Behe understood that the whales had evolved from terrestrial
mammals, but they did it in a way that he claimed was not the "good"
type of evolution that his designer would have been able to do.
Behe has no issue with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor. I do
not think that he has claimed that, that evolution was devolution.
Ron Okimoto
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/>
"In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation and
natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces."
Similar to how Behe insisted IC systems can't evolve, he now insists
devolution isn't evolution.
The fact is, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. For
purposes of that definition, it doesn't matter how they changed.
Behe's distinction is simply worg.
He knows that it is evolution, he just claims that the evolution that
his designer is responsible for is the good evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
Behe on the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
QUOTE:
Well, no. They found a lot of devolution.
We found 85 gene losses. Some of these were likely beneficial for
cetaceans, for example, by reducing the risk of thrombus formation
during diving (F12 and KLKB1), erroneous DNA damage repair (POLM), and >oxidative stress–induced lung inflammation (MAP3K19). Additional gene >losses may reflect other diving-related adaptations, such as enhanced >vasoconstriction during the diving response (mediated by SLC6A18) and >altered pulmonary surfactant composition (SEC14L3), while loss of SLC4A9 >relates to a reduced need for saliva. Last, loss of melatonin synthesis
and receptor genes (AANAT, ASMT, and MTNR1A/B) may have been a
precondition for adopting unihemispheric sleep. Our findings suggest
that some genes lost in ancestral cetaceans were likely involved in
adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle.
Adaptation by Breaking Things
A couple of points:
1) At least 85 changes — and probably many more — were needed for whale >evolution. That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get >stuck in adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long.
2) As I explain in Darwin Devolves, adaptation by breaking or blunting
genes is expected to be very much faster than constructive evolution, so
it should dominate all evolutionary time scales. As the current paper
helps to show, the evidence for that is growing. Not only is devolution
the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab >experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we
infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts
of new information. There is no hint of significant, constructive
Darwinian molecular changes at any time scale.
END QUOTE:
He obviously knows that his devolotion is "also in the macroevolutionary >change".
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:59:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 7:57 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:42:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2023 9:54 PM, jillery wrote:
<massive snip>
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from
what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
This is what Behe was claiming about his more recent junk like the whale >>>> devolution from terrestrial mammals. Glenn and Nyikos couldn't get it >>>> that Behe was claiming that this evolution had occurred, and that it
wasn't the type of evolution that his designer would have been expected >>>> to be associated with. It was evolution by breaking things, and Behe
claimed that, that type of evolution would be expected to occur whenever >>>> there was a selective advantage for such a change. If there was a
selective advantage to destroy the function of some gene, it would be
expected to be selected for when it occurred, and deleterious mutations >>>> are more common than change in function mutations that an organism could >>>> use. Behe understood that the whales had evolved from terrestrial
mammals, but they did it in a way that he claimed was not the "good"
type of evolution that his designer would have been able to do.
Behe has no issue with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor. I do >>>> not think that he has claimed that, that evolution was devolution.
Ron Okimoto
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/>
"In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation and
natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces."
Similar to how Behe insisted IC systems can't evolve, he now insists
devolution isn't evolution.
The fact is, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. For
purposes of that definition, it doesn't matter how they changed.
Behe's distinction is simply worg.
He knows that it is evolution, he just claims that the evolution that
his designer is responsible for is the good evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/ >>
Behe on the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
QUOTE:
Well, no. They found a lot of devolution.
We found 85 gene losses. Some of these were likely beneficial for
cetaceans, for example, by reducing the risk of thrombus formation
during diving (F12 and KLKB1), erroneous DNA damage repair (POLM), and
oxidative stress–induced lung inflammation (MAP3K19). Additional gene
losses may reflect other diving-related adaptations, such as enhanced
vasoconstriction during the diving response (mediated by SLC6A18) and
altered pulmonary surfactant composition (SEC14L3), while loss of SLC4A9
relates to a reduced need for saliva. Last, loss of melatonin synthesis
and receptor genes (AANAT, ASMT, and MTNR1A/B) may have been a
precondition for adopting unihemispheric sleep. Our findings suggest
that some genes lost in ancestral cetaceans were likely involved in
adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle.
Adaptation by Breaking Things
A couple of points:
1) At least 85 changes — and probably many more — were needed for whale >> evolution. That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get
stuck in adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long.
2) As I explain in Darwin Devolves, adaptation by breaking or blunting
genes is expected to be very much faster than constructive evolution, so
it should dominate all evolutionary time scales. As the current paper
helps to show, the evidence for that is growing. Not only is devolution
the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab
experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we
infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts
of new information. There is no hint of significant, constructive
Darwinian molecular changes at any time scale.
END QUOTE:
He obviously knows that his devolotion is "also in the macroevolutionary
change".
"There is no hint of significant, constructive Darwinian molecular
changes at any time scale." obviously says otherwise.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/23/2023 10:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:59:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 7:57 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:42:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2023 9:54 PM, jillery wrote:
<massive snip>
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from >>>>>> what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
This is what Behe was claiming about his more recent junk like the whale >>>>> devolution from terrestrial mammals. Glenn and Nyikos couldn't get it >>>>> that Behe was claiming that this evolution had occurred, and that it >>>>> wasn't the type of evolution that his designer would have been expected >>>>> to be associated with. It was evolution by breaking things, and Behe >>>>> claimed that, that type of evolution would be expected to occur whenever >>>>> there was a selective advantage for such a change. If there was a
selective advantage to destroy the function of some gene, it would be >>>>> expected to be selected for when it occurred, and deleterious mutations >>>>> are more common than change in function mutations that an organism could >>>>> use. Behe understood that the whales had evolved from terrestrial
mammals, but they did it in a way that he claimed was not the "good" >>>>> type of evolution that his designer would have been able to do.
Behe has no issue with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor. I do >>>>> not think that he has claimed that, that evolution was devolution.
Ron Okimoto
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/>
"In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation and
natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces."
Similar to how Behe insisted IC systems can't evolve, he now insists
devolution isn't evolution.
The fact is, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. For >>>> purposes of that definition, it doesn't matter how they changed.
Behe's distinction is simply worg.
He knows that it is evolution, he just claims that the evolution that
his designer is responsible for is the good evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
Behe on the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
QUOTE:
Well, no. They found a lot of devolution.
We found 85 gene losses. Some of these were likely beneficial for
cetaceans, for example, by reducing the risk of thrombus formation
during diving (F12 and KLKB1), erroneous DNA damage repair (POLM), and
oxidative stress–induced lung inflammation (MAP3K19). Additional gene
losses may reflect other diving-related adaptations, such as enhanced
vasoconstriction during the diving response (mediated by SLC6A18) and
altered pulmonary surfactant composition (SEC14L3), while loss of SLC4A9 >>> relates to a reduced need for saliva. Last, loss of melatonin synthesis
and receptor genes (AANAT, ASMT, and MTNR1A/B) may have been a
precondition for adopting unihemispheric sleep. Our findings suggest
that some genes lost in ancestral cetaceans were likely involved in
adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle.
Adaptation by Breaking Things
A couple of points:
1) At least 85 changes — and probably many more — were needed for whale >>> evolution. That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get >>> stuck in adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long.
2) As I explain in Darwin Devolves, adaptation by breaking or blunting
genes is expected to be very much faster than constructive evolution, so >>> it should dominate all evolutionary time scales. As the current paper
helps to show, the evidence for that is growing. Not only is devolution
the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab
experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we
infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts >>> of new information. There is no hint of significant, constructive
Darwinian molecular changes at any time scale.
END QUOTE:
He obviously knows that his devolotion is "also in the macroevolutionary >>> change".
"There is no hint of significant, constructive Darwinian molecular
changes at any time scale." obviously says otherwise.
Why did you put this up? It just says the same thing that I said.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 06:03:21 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 10:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:59:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 7:57 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:42:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/22/2023 9:54 PM, jillery wrote:
<massive snip>
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from >>>>>>> what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
This is what Behe was claiming about his more recent junk like the whale >>>>>> devolution from terrestrial mammals. Glenn and Nyikos couldn't get it >>>>>> that Behe was claiming that this evolution had occurred, and that it >>>>>> wasn't the type of evolution that his designer would have been expected >>>>>> to be associated with. It was evolution by breaking things, and Behe >>>>>> claimed that, that type of evolution would be expected to occur whenever >>>>>> there was a selective advantage for such a change. If there was a >>>>>> selective advantage to destroy the function of some gene, it would be >>>>>> expected to be selected for when it occurred, and deleterious mutations >>>>>> are more common than change in function mutations that an organism could >>>>>> use. Behe understood that the whales had evolved from terrestrial >>>>>> mammals, but they did it in a way that he claimed was not the "good" >>>>>> type of evolution that his designer would have been able to do.
Behe has no issue with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor. I do >>>>>> not think that he has claimed that, that evolution was devolution. >>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/>
"In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation and
natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces."
Similar to how Behe insisted IC systems can't evolve, he now insists >>>>> devolution isn't evolution.
The fact is, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. For >>>>> purposes of that definition, it doesn't matter how they changed.
Behe's distinction is simply worg.
He knows that it is evolution, he just claims that the evolution that
his designer is responsible for is the good evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
Behe on the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
QUOTE:
Well, no. They found a lot of devolution.
We found 85 gene losses. Some of these were likely beneficial for
cetaceans, for example, by reducing the risk of thrombus formation
during diving (F12 and KLKB1), erroneous DNA damage repair (POLM), and >>>> oxidative stress–induced lung inflammation (MAP3K19). Additional gene >>>> losses may reflect other diving-related adaptations, such as enhanced
vasoconstriction during the diving response (mediated by SLC6A18) and
altered pulmonary surfactant composition (SEC14L3), while loss of SLC4A9 >>>> relates to a reduced need for saliva. Last, loss of melatonin synthesis >>>> and receptor genes (AANAT, ASMT, and MTNR1A/B) may have been a
precondition for adopting unihemispheric sleep. Our findings suggest
that some genes lost in ancestral cetaceans were likely involved in
adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle.
Adaptation by Breaking Things
A couple of points:
1) At least 85 changes — and probably many more — were needed for whale
evolution. That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get >>>> stuck in adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long.
2) As I explain in Darwin Devolves, adaptation by breaking or blunting >>>> genes is expected to be very much faster than constructive evolution, so >>>> it should dominate all evolutionary time scales. As the current paper
helps to show, the evidence for that is growing. Not only is devolution >>>> the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab
experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we
infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts >>>> of new information. There is no hint of significant, constructive
Darwinian molecular changes at any time scale.
END QUOTE:
He obviously knows that his devolotion is "also in the macroevolutionary >>>> change".
"There is no hint of significant, constructive Darwinian molecular
changes at any time scale." obviously says otherwise.
Why did you put this up? It just says the same thing that I said.
No, it says the very opposite of what you said. That's what
"otherwise" means. Behe's words unambiguously declare that Darwinian processes produce zero significant *constructive* changes, and instead
only broken devolution. Behe's entire theme distinguishes between
Darwinian "devolution" and constructive evolution, the very opposite
of what you say.
<snip-a-doodle>
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/24/2023 8:18 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 06:03:21 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 10:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:59:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 7:57 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:42:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/22/2023 9:54 PM, jillery wrote:
<massive snip>
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from >>>>>>>> what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
This is what Behe was claiming about his more recent junk like the whale
devolution from terrestrial mammals. Glenn and Nyikos couldn't get it >>>>>>> that Behe was claiming that this evolution had occurred, and that it >>>>>>> wasn't the type of evolution that his designer would have been expected >>>>>>> to be associated with. It was evolution by breaking things, and Behe >>>>>>> claimed that, that type of evolution would be expected to occur whenever
there was a selective advantage for such a change. If there was a >>>>>>> selective advantage to destroy the function of some gene, it would be >>>>>>> expected to be selected for when it occurred, and deleterious mutations >>>>>>> are more common than change in function mutations that an organism could
use. Behe understood that the whales had evolved from terrestrial >>>>>>> mammals, but they did it in a way that he claimed was not the "good" >>>>>>> type of evolution that his designer would have been able to do.
Behe has no issue with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor. I do >>>>>>> not think that he has claimed that, that evolution was devolution. >>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/> >>>>>> "In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation and >>>>>> natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces."
Similar to how Behe insisted IC systems can't evolve, he now insists >>>>>> devolution isn't evolution.
The fact is, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. For >>>>>> purposes of that definition, it doesn't matter how they changed.
Behe's distinction is simply worg.
He knows that it is evolution, he just claims that the evolution that >>>>> his designer is responsible for is the good evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
Behe on the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
QUOTE:
Well, no. They found a lot of devolution.
We found 85 gene losses. Some of these were likely beneficial for
cetaceans, for example, by reducing the risk of thrombus formation
during diving (F12 and KLKB1), erroneous DNA damage repair (POLM), and >>>>> oxidative stress–induced lung inflammation (MAP3K19). Additional gene >>>>> losses may reflect other diving-related adaptations, such as enhanced >>>>> vasoconstriction during the diving response (mediated by SLC6A18) and >>>>> altered pulmonary surfactant composition (SEC14L3), while loss of SLC4A9 >>>>> relates to a reduced need for saliva. Last, loss of melatonin synthesis >>>>> and receptor genes (AANAT, ASMT, and MTNR1A/B) may have been a
precondition for adopting unihemispheric sleep. Our findings suggest >>>>> that some genes lost in ancestral cetaceans were likely involved in
adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle.
Adaptation by Breaking Things
A couple of points:
1) At least 85 changes — and probably many more — were needed for whale
evolution. That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get >>>>> stuck in adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long.
2) As I explain in Darwin Devolves, adaptation by breaking or blunting >>>>> genes is expected to be very much faster than constructive evolution, so >>>>> it should dominate all evolutionary time scales. As the current paper >>>>> helps to show, the evidence for that is growing. Not only is devolution >>>>> the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab
experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we
infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts >>>>> of new information. There is no hint of significant, constructive
Darwinian molecular changes at any time scale.
END QUOTE:
He obviously knows that his devolotion is "also in the macroevolutionary >>>>> change".
"There is no hint of significant, constructive Darwinian molecular
changes at any time scale." obviously says otherwise.
Why did you put this up? It just says the same thing that I said.
No, it says the very opposite of what you said. That's what
"otherwise" means. Behe's words unambiguously declare that Darwinian
processes produce zero significant *constructive* changes, and instead
only broken devolution. Behe's entire theme distinguishes between
Darwinian "devolution" and constructive evolution, the very opposite
of what you say.
<snip-a-doodle>
Just read the article. Behe claims that the whale evolution was macro >evolution, but he claims that it was devolution by breaking genes that
had existed in the terrestrial ancestors of aquatic whales. He claims
that it is the type of evolution that should dominate Darwinian
evolution (the kicker is that it would only work if breaking existing
genes had more of an advantage than keeping the genes doing what they
were doing, and that if this was not the case, you wouldn't expect it to >happen by Darwinian selection). Normally when you break a gene that >mutation is selected against, so it would never dominate biological >evolution unless breaking the gene had some advantage. It turned out
that when whales went back to living in the water there were a lot of
genes that could be broken and readapt whales to an aquatic lifestyle
when their ancestors had spent a couple hundred million years evolving
to survive in a terrestrial environment out of water. Behe is really >claiming that whale devolution is what you can expect by Darwinian >mechanism, but he claims that it is a bad type of evolution. He calls
it devolution, but that does not change the fact that whales evolved
from terrestrial mammals. As stupid as it may be, Behe is claiming that >whales evolved by a means that his designer wouldn't have had to do.
Whales obviously evolved by Darwinian means, they just devolved
according to Behe because some of their evolution was due to breaking >existing genes so that whales were better adapted to their new aquatic >lifestyle.
Read the article for comprehension. It should make you laugh at how
stupid the whole notion is.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
Ron Okimoto
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 05:21:33 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/24/2023 8:18 AM, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 06:03:21 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 10:51 PM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 17:59:38 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 7:57 AM, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:42:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/22/2023 9:54 PM, jillery wrote:
<massive snip>
Behe claims that Darwinian evolution is "devolution", distinct from >>>>>>>>> what he calls "evolution" by purposeful intelligent agency.
This is what Behe was claiming about his more recent junk like the whale
devolution from terrestrial mammals. Glenn and Nyikos couldn't get it >>>>>>>> that Behe was claiming that this evolution had occurred, and that it >>>>>>>> wasn't the type of evolution that his designer would have been expected
to be associated with. It was evolution by breaking things, and Behe >>>>>>>> claimed that, that type of evolution would be expected to occur whenever
there was a selective advantage for such a change. If there was a >>>>>>>> selective advantage to destroy the function of some gene, it would be >>>>>>>> expected to be selected for when it occurred, and deleterious mutations
are more common than change in function mutations that an organism could
use. Behe understood that the whales had evolved from terrestrial >>>>>>>> mammals, but they did it in a way that he claimed was not the "good" >>>>>>>> type of evolution that his designer would have been able to do. >>>>>>>>
Behe has no issue with humans evolving from an ape like ancestor. I do
not think that he has claimed that, that evolution was devolution. >>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/> >>>>>>> "In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation and >>>>>>> natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces."
Similar to how Behe insisted IC systems can't evolve, he now insists >>>>>>> devolution isn't evolution.
The fact is, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. For >>>>>>> purposes of that definition, it doesn't matter how they changed. >>>>>>> Behe's distinction is simply worg.
He knows that it is evolution, he just claims that the evolution that >>>>>> his designer is responsible for is the good evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
Behe on the evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
QUOTE:
Well, no. They found a lot of devolution.
We found 85 gene losses. Some of these were likely beneficial for
cetaceans, for example, by reducing the risk of thrombus formation >>>>>> during diving (F12 and KLKB1), erroneous DNA damage repair (POLM), and >>>>>> oxidative stress–induced lung inflammation (MAP3K19). Additional gene >>>>>> losses may reflect other diving-related adaptations, such as enhanced >>>>>> vasoconstriction during the diving response (mediated by SLC6A18) and >>>>>> altered pulmonary surfactant composition (SEC14L3), while loss of SLC4A9 >>>>>> relates to a reduced need for saliva. Last, loss of melatonin synthesis >>>>>> and receptor genes (AANAT, ASMT, and MTNR1A/B) may have been a
precondition for adopting unihemispheric sleep. Our findings suggest >>>>>> that some genes lost in ancestral cetaceans were likely involved in >>>>>> adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle.
Adaptation by Breaking Things
A couple of points:
1) At least 85 changes — and probably many more — were needed for whale
evolution. That’s a whole lotta intermediates that somehow didn’t get
stuck in adaptive dead ends, or persist for very long.
2) As I explain in Darwin Devolves, adaptation by breaking or blunting >>>>>> genes is expected to be very much faster than constructive evolution, so >>>>>> it should dominate all evolutionary time scales. As the current paper >>>>>> helps to show, the evidence for that is growing. Not only is devolution >>>>>> the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab >>>>>> experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we >>>>>> infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts
of new information. There is no hint of significant, constructive
Darwinian molecular changes at any time scale.
END QUOTE:
He obviously knows that his devolotion is "also in the macroevolutionary >>>>>> change".
"There is no hint of significant, constructive Darwinian molecular
changes at any time scale." obviously says otherwise.
Why did you put this up? It just says the same thing that I said.
No, it says the very opposite of what you said. That's what
"otherwise" means. Behe's words unambiguously declare that Darwinian
processes produce zero significant *constructive* changes, and instead
only broken devolution. Behe's entire theme distinguishes between
Darwinian "devolution" and constructive evolution, the very opposite
of what you say.
<snip-a-doodle>
Just read the article. Behe claims that the whale evolution was macro
evolution, but he claims that it was devolution by breaking genes that
had existed in the terrestrial ancestors of aquatic whales. He claims
that it is the type of evolution that should dominate Darwinian
evolution (the kicker is that it would only work if breaking existing
genes had more of an advantage than keeping the genes doing what they
were doing, and that if this was not the case, you wouldn't expect it to
happen by Darwinian selection). Normally when you break a gene that
mutation is selected against, so it would never dominate biological
evolution unless breaking the gene had some advantage. It turned out
that when whales went back to living in the water there were a lot of
genes that could be broken and readapt whales to an aquatic lifestyle
when their ancestors had spent a couple hundred million years evolving
to survive in a terrestrial environment out of water. Behe is really
claiming that whale devolution is what you can expect by Darwinian
mechanism, but he claims that it is a bad type of evolution. He calls
it devolution, but that does not change the fact that whales evolved
from terrestrial mammals. As stupid as it may be, Behe is claiming that
whales evolved by a means that his designer wouldn't have had to do.
Whales obviously evolved by Darwinian means, they just devolved
according to Behe because some of their evolution was due to breaking
existing genes so that whales were better adapted to their new aquatic
lifestyle.
Read the article for comprehension. It should make you laugh at how
stupid the whole notion is.
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/ >>
Ron Okimoto
Ok. I remain confused by Behe's double-think, that what he calls
"broken" devolution is somehow different from "constructive"
evolution.
In another contemporaneous thread, Nyikos identifies an article where
Behe explicitly acknowledges that devolution still allows for
speciation aka macro-evolution:
<https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/> *************************************
The more recent results recounted here just pile more evidence onto
that gathered in Darwin Devolves showing Darwin’s mechanism is
powerfully devolutionary. That simple realization neatly explains
results ranging from the evolutionary behavior of yeast in a comfy
modern laboratory, to the speciation of megafauna in raw nature
millions of years ago, and almost certainly to everything in between. *************************************
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:46:00 |
| Calls: | 9,770 |
| Calls today: | 11 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,186,516 |