[_ Old Earth _] Stick to the point

[Guest]

Bob.

I have a reply to your post typed and ready to go. However the OP doesn't want a ToE discussion in this thread and has pretty much told me to get out as he wishes to listen to the silence of ID proponents trying to explain how to test it. Link me to any other thread and you'll have your reply.

If you think you can handle it.

I'm not going to reply to anything more in this thread.

~XoM


DISREGARD THAT, REPLY POSTED BELOW!!!

 

[Jayls5]

Bob.

I have a reply to your post typed and ready to go. However the OP doesn't want a ToE discussion in this thread and has pretty much told me to get out as he wishes to listen to the silence of ID proponents trying to explain how to test it. Link me to any other thread and you'll have your reply.

If you think you can handle it.

I'm not going to reply to anything more in this thread.

~XoM

Nah, honestly, have at it. This thread's done in my opinion already. It was one last futile attempt at getting some straight forward answers, but it's not going to happen.

 

[Guest]

Nah, honestly, have at it. This thread's done in my opinion already. It was one last futile attempt at getting some straight forward answers, but it's not going to happen.

*tries to resist saying "I told you so"* :-D

 

[Guest]

Bob.

Ok seems OP has given up trying to get you lot to do the impossible and find a test that will determine positive or negative for ID. On that subject though, you never told me how ID could be disproved. I take it you have no answer?

As for the confirmed junk-science religion of atheist darwinism -- we have a thread dedicated to Piltdown junk-science confirmed 40 year fraud and the Simpson horse series example of junk-science confirmed 50 year fraud foisting onto the unsuspecting public a fossil sequence "that never happened in nature" according to modern atheist darwinists.

Then there is the neanderthal age/dating fraud perpetrated by darwinists for over 30 years.

The Nebraska man fraud.

The fraudulent presentations for the myth that ontology recapitulates phylogeny as Ernst Haeckle perpetrated it for over 40 years.

You know all this "good science" littering the religion of atheist darwinism just looks like one confirmed hoax after another. So that is why the term junk-science keeps getting applied to the religion system of darwinism.

Well seeing as you never really like to give any evidence as back up to your points, I've done some quick research for myself.

Wikipedia has no article on "Simpson Horse" but Google yielded http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evo ... ie017.html which states categorically that there was a Palentologist called Simpson who was flagrantly misquoted as saying that he didn't believe in horse evolution.

1) Quotes don't count for evidence
2) Misquotings count for evidence against the integrity of the group using them. I think I'm noticing a recurring theme here?

The Neanderthal man dating fraud is so far the only case of true fraud you've listed. It took a bit of legwork to find a NPOV source reporting it, but the Guardian paper in the UK reported it. From the evidence I have it would appear as if Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was indeed a fraud. However, guess who revealed him to be a fraud? No it wasn't creationists, it was other scientists at the University of Oxford. Scientists who according to you would go to any lengths to protect ToE. Selling out one of their own like that doesn't look much like the organised conspiracy against ID that you claim it is does it?

A quick read of the Nebraska man article on Wikipedia shows exactly what I figured it would be. Nebraska man was an honest mistake not a fraud and furthermore it was corrected within a matter of years when more evidence came to light. Corrected by the same scientists who are mounting a concerted effort to trick the world into a gigantic lie? I think not.

Please tell me what Ernst Haeckle has to do with anything. Wikipedia says that there was some scandal over some drawings of embryos he drew. It also says that these have nothing to do with ToE or common descent, seeing as they came about 20 years after "Origin of Species". No wonder creationists don't understand radiometric dating if they can't even date a publication that has the date written on it to within two decades!

The problem with your argument is that you seem to think that scientists making mistakes is a bad thing and that the mistakes were deliberate. Science is all about making mistakes and then correcting them. Back in the middle ages, physicists thought that an arrow flew because of something called "violent force" which was that air being pushed out of the way of the arrow curved back and pushed on the tail of the arrow from behind. Is this a fraud? Does this invalidate Newtonian mechanics? Of course not.

For a long time the atom was modelled using the plum pudding model, saying that an atom was like a plum pudding, with positive and negative charges scattered through its mass like fruit in a pudding. Science later proved by experimentation that an atom is in fact a small, positive nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negative electrons. Does this represent a damning fraud that invalidates the theory that all matter is comprised of atoms? No.

Science is the process of separating the wheat from the chaff, inspecting each theory and throwing out the ones that can be proven false. We make mistakes but that does not constitute weakness, because if we make a mistake, we soon figure out that we've stuffed up and correct it. It is only through people being wrong in the past that we can be right in the present.

 

[Jayls5]

XolotlOfMictlan, would you be annoyed if you found out that people have already explicitly told him everything you just said, yet he continues to use the argument? It's been discussed before and refuted, but he just goes on incoherent ramblings about "atheist darwinism."

 

[Guest]

XolotlOfMictlan, would you be annoyed if you found out that people have already explicitly told him everything you just said, yet he continues to use the argument? It's been discussed before and refuted, but he just goes on incoherent ramblings about "atheist darwinism."

Well it would be less of great annoyance than "Psh, typical!".I personally haven't refuted those particular arguments of his so I thought I might as well. I suppose it's to be expected from him really, I've already refuted several of his favourite little things to say (most notably the Patterson thing, I explained in almost 'less than three syllable' terms what Patterson actually meant in context) and yet he keeps using them.

I suppose it wouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that I'm not the first person who's tried to teach him elementary science. From watching several videos on Youtube, most namely those of thunderf00t, it seems that the "I don't understand it and therefore it's wrong" is quite a common argument for the creationists.

I don't know whether he ignores our arguments or if he genuinely does not understand them.

 

[BobRyan]

1. The OP "claims" to want to discuss ID but then insists on NOT using the DEFINITION for ID which as we all know -- is the "Academic FREEDOM to FOLLOW the data where it leads without having to hog-tie scientific discovery so that it will always be guaranteed to pander to the needs and dictates of atheist dogma".

I find that "instructive".

2. Secondly the OP appears to "want" to talk about the TEST for ID. I have repeatedly shown that the SAME TEST that was used in the case of ID in the field of EM Wave forms -- the test arleady SHOWN to work and to provide results -- is the one that should then ALSO BE used in the field of "applied chemistry" that we call "Biology".

The TEST consists of studying the form SEEN in nature and discriminating (filtering) out what "Rocks can do given enough time energy and mass". This is done in the case of the EM Wave form by seeing what those rocks DO produce on their own -- and IGNORING it to see what we have left.

Turns out it is pretty easy to implement a "SCAN" function under those conditions.

So -- we have the TEST. Now the next step is picking an example in Biology and applying the same proven workable test.

The first FEW examples have already been selected for us - and one of them is the case of DNA mRNA Proteiin synthesis.

The ID scientists have so far proven that rocks are doing that and no Darwinist has been able to get the rocks to do it. So far the test points to ID in that case.

Obviously.

Bob

Wow! There it is "again" the same post highlighting all the inconvenient details - about the TEST for ID the one already PROVEN and the area where it is yet to be APPLIED.

Not your every day darwinist pablum so it might be difficult for some folks to read.

Bob[/quote]

Bob.

Ok seems OP has given up trying to get you lot to do the impossible and find a test that will determine positive or negative for ID.

As "predicted" we have some darwinist devotees struggling to read the post above.

You guys are really getting TOOO predictable.

you need another tool in your rabbit-trail misdirection bag-o-tricks when it comes to "ignoring the obvious".

How can I help you get out of that confused befuddled mode? This has just got to be embarrassing for you.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for the confirmed junk-science religion of atheist darwinism -- we have a thread dedicated to Piltdown junk-science confirmed 40 year fraud and the Simpson horse series example of junk-science confirmed 50 year fraud foisting onto the unsuspecting public a fossil sequence "that never happened in nature" according to modern atheist darwinists.

Then there is the neanderthal age/dating fraud perpetrated by darwinists for over 30 years.

The Nebraska man fraud.

The fraudulent presentations for the myth that ontology recapitulates phylogeny as Ernst Haeckle perpetrated it for over 40 years.

You know all this "good science" littering the religion of atheist darwinism just looks like one confirmed hoax after another. So that is why the term junk-science keeps getting applied to the religious system of atheist darwinism.

XoM

Well seeing as you never really like to give any evidence as back up to your points

Hint: READ the previous post.... NOTE the details... RESPOND to them.

Again - just pointing the glaringly obvious for our deny-all darwinist posters.

XoM
, I've done some quick research for myself.

This should be fun.

XoM

Wikipedia has no article on "Simpson Horse" but Google yielded http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evo ... ie017.html which states categorically that there was a Palentologist called Simpson who was flagrantly misquoted as saying that he didn't believe in horse evolution.

1) Quotes don't count for evidence
2) Misquotings count for evidence against the integrity of the group using them. I think I'm noticing a recurring theme here?

Ok - on that research you get an F+.


I never made the argument that Simpson "Does not believe in evolution" or "does not believe in horse evolution".

But you at least "did good" in trying to find something like data to support your wild "stories easy enough to make up" as Patterson calls them.

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature." *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

The sad "rabbit trail spin" that darwinist devotees try to put out to the public trying to misdirect them away from the honest content in these statements is of the mind-numbingly simple form "anyone who quotes those guys MUST ALSO be arguing that they are no longer believers in horse evolution so just ignore the quotes".

How this kind of pablum get's passed around and swallowed among darwinist devotees is beyond anyone to figure out.

The clear and glaringly obvous point of the STATEMENTS from these atheist darwinists is that they published a FRAUD - a hoax.. they published a fossil sequence AS IF it was FACT when in fact it was FABRICATION.

But this is very difficult distinction for atheist darwinists since they know that ALL of what they do is simply "stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT SCIENCE" as day after day they tell the public "stories about how one thing came from another" (To put this point in Patterson's own words).

AGain just addressing the glaringly obvious for our deny-all darwinist devotees.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for the confirmed junk-science religion of atheist darwinism -- we have a thread dedicated to Piltdown junk-science confirmed 40 year fraud and the Simpson horse series example of junk-science confirmed 50 year fraud foisting onto the unsuspecting public a fossil sequence "that never happened in nature" according to modern atheist darwinists.

Then there is the neanderthal age/dating fraud perpetrated by darwinists for over 30 years.

The Nebraska man fraud.

The fraudulent presentations for the myth that ontology recapitulates phylogeny as Ernst Haeckle perpetrated it for over 40 years.

You know all this "good science" littering the religion of atheist darwinism just looks like one confirmed hoax after another. So that is why the term junk-science keeps getting applied to the religion system of darwinism.

Bob.

The Neanderthal man dating fraud is so far the only case of true fraud you've listed.

wrong - again.

It is just the most RECENT case.

Or is this the part where you fall on your sword defending Piltdown man and Ernst Haekles fraudulent presentations on Ontogeny?

I am guessing that in the junk-science relgion of atheist darwinism it gets pretty hard to tell the fake from the really really glaringly obvious fake.

It took a bit of legwork to find a NPOV source reporting it, but the Guardian paper in the UK reported it. From the evidence I have it would appear as if Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was indeed a fraud.

Carefull - you are stepping away from your "Deny all" solution.

What convinced you to budge even an inch??

However, guess who revealed him to be a fraud? No it wasn't creationists, it was other scientists at the University of Oxford. Scientists who according to you would go to any lengths to protect ToE. Selling out one of their own..

Earth to XoM -- ALL my examples of fraud of HOAXES and of "stories easy enough MAKE UP but they are not SCIENCE" are examples where CONFIRMED ATHEIST DARWINISTS are blowing the whistle on their own hoax-miester projects!!

And so here is where more quotes from the Atheist Darwinist Patterson would normally be included ;-)

Every day I am benefitted by the large amounts of what Patterson calls anti-knowledge that you guys keep gulping down -- and you have my sincere thanks for making this so easy.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A quick read of the Nebraska man article on Wikipedia shows exactly what I figured it would be. Nebraska man was an honest mistake not a fraud and furthermore it was corrected within a matter of years when more evidence came to light. Corrected by the same scientists who are mounting a concerted effort to trick the world into a gigantic lie? I think not.

Wrong -- again!!

However "TRICK the world into believing a lie" was the only point you did get right in your "research".. Nebraska man was no man at all -- it was merely a pig TOOTH found in Nebraska.

So what FRAUD is then foisted onto 'the word' using that pig tooth? Well they use it in the scopes trial NOT as "a tooth" but rather as AN ENTIRE Nebraska man -- FAMILY gathered around the cave camp fire -- Nebraska MAN, Nebraska WOMAN and their little clan -- the LIFE and times of Nebraska man - Presented in the SCOPES trial to DUPE an unsuspecting judge and jury into THINKING that they had ACTUAL facts in front of them -- when all it was in truth was "Stories EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP". In fact a "pig tooth making a monkey out of a trial for the whole world to SEE"

But of course this entire sad history in the hoax-rich history of junk-science Darwinism is for you "excellent" because you live this stuff every day.

The rest of us would prefer LESS story telling and more SCIENCE!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Please tell me what Ernst Haeckle has to do with anything. Wikipedia says that there was some scandal over some drawings of embryos he drew. It also says that these have nothing to do with ToE or common descent,

The wild story telling of how "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" was foisted onto the public and into so-called SCIENCE text books for almost 50 years based on the wild "story telling -- stories easy enough to make up but not Science" of Haeckle as he fraudulent claimed to represent embryonic stages in humans that perfectly matched those of various animals. He simply "edited" the presentation so that it LOOKED like what was "NEEDED" in the "Story telling". Worked well for about 50 years.

XoM
The problem with your argument is that you seem to think that scientists making mistakes is a bad thing

wrong -- AGAIN.

A scientist that says " I measured the rate of fall of this object and it was X.5 but should have been X.4" is understandable.

The FRAUD comes when the scientist WANT's to "tell a story" but has no facts to back it up so HE MAKES IT UP and COVERS UP the source sufficiently so those being DUPED can not see the gap between what they are being TOLD and what the scientist actually knows to be TRUE.

Haeckle KNEW he was editing - doctoring that which he was presenting to others as EVIDENCE.

The Darwinists KNEW they were presenting "A lot of guessing about nothing more than a TOOTH" in their Nebraska MAN wild invention of "Stories easy enough to make up".

1.
30 DIFFERENT HORSES: In the 1870s, Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale University.

Marsh KNEW he was not finding IN the fossil record this SERIES of horses as the "SEQUENCE" he was merely "ARRANGING" in his efforts to describe a "story easy enough to MAKE UP".

2. Simpson published Marsh's fraudulent ARRANGEMENT (fabricated SEQUENCE out of whole cloth) in the early 1950's and then later found the PROBLEM with claiming that the sequence was legit - was SCIENCE.

3. Hint: You can not FIND a sequence that "NEVER happened in NATURE" - unless you are deliberately engaged in "STORIES about how one thing came from another - STORIES easy enough to MAKE UP"

As much as a deny-all gloss-over of what Atheist darwinists today call this "LAMENTABLE" fact of history may "serve the interest" of darwinist devotees while attacking me for even bringing the subject up - it does nothing to convince the serious unbiased objective reader.

This seems to surprise darwinist devotees like Jay and others -- every time it is mentioned!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The article below was first commissioned and later censored by the Times Higher Education Supplement. (The circumstances under which it came to be censored, following the intervention of Dr Richard Dawkins, are described in the pages on Scientific Censorship).
The readers of the Times Higher Education Supplement (a large proportion of the University lecturers of Britain) have thus been prevented from learning of its contents. Now you have the facts before you and can make up your own mind.

Neo-Darwinism: time to reconsider

It was the dazzling gains made by science and technology in the nineteenth century through the application of rational analysis that led people to think of applying reason to other fields.
Following the brilliant success of reason and method in physics and chemistry -- especially in medicine -- it was natural for science to seek to apply the same analytical tool to the most intractable and complex problems: human society and economic affairs; human psychology; and even the origin and development of life itself. The result was the great mechanistic philosophies of the last century: Marxism, Freudianism and Darwinism.

The simplicities and certainties of these systems mirrored the intellectually well-ordered life of Victorian society with its authoritarian values and institutionalised prejudices. Now, a century later, all three systems have run their course, have been measured by history, and have been ultimately found to be inadequate tools of explanation.

Unlike Marx and Freud, Darwin himself remains esteemed both as a highly original thinker and as a careful researcher (his study of fossil barnacles remains a text book example for palaeontologists). But the theory that bears his name was transformed in the early years of this century into the mechanistic, reductionist theory of neo-Darwinism: the theory that living creatures are machines whose only goal is genetic replication -- a matter of chemistry and statistics; or, in the words of professor Jacques Monod, director of the Pasteur Institute, a matter only of "chance and necessity". 1

And while the evidence for evolution itself remains persuasive -- especially the homologies that are found in comparative anatomy and molecular biology of many different species -- much of the empirical evidence that was formerly believed to support the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection has melted away like snow on a spring morning, through better observation and more careful analysis.

Marxist, Freudian and neo-Darwinist systems of thought ultimately failed for the same reason; that they sought to use mechanistic reductionism to explain and predict systems that we now know are complexity-related, and cannot be explained as the sum of their parts.

In the case of neo-Darwinism, it was not the mysteries of the mind or of the economy that were explained. It was the origin of the first single-celled organism in the primeval oceans, and its development into the plant and animal kingdoms of today by a strictly blind process of chance genetic mutation working with natural selection.

In the first five decades of this century -- the heyday of the theory -- zoologists, palaeontologists and comparative anatomists assembled the impressive exhibits that generations of school children have seen in Natural History Museums the world over: the evolution of the horse family; the fossils that illustrate the transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal; and the discovery of astonishing extinct species such as "Archaeopteryx", apparently half-reptile, half-bird.

Over successive decades, these exhibits have been first disputed, then downgraded, and finally shunted off to obscure museum basements, as further research has shown them to be flawed or misconceived.

Horse Series:

Anyone educated in a western country in the last forty years will recall being shown a chart of the evolution of the horse from "Eohippus", a small dog-like creature in the Eocene period 50 million years ago, to "Mesohippus", a sheep-sized animal of 30 million years ago, eventually to "Dinohippus", the size of a Shetland pony.

This chart was drawn in 1950 by Harvard's professor of palaeontology George Simpson, to accompany his standard text book, Horses, which encapsulated all the research done by the American Museum of Natural History in the previous half century.

Simpson plainly believed that his evidence was incontrovertible because he wrote, 'The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.' 2

Yet shortly after this affirmation, Simpson admits in passing that the chart he has drawn contains major gaps that he has not included: a gap before "Eohippus" and its unknown ancestors, for example, and another gap after "Eohippus" and before its supposed descendant "Mesohippus". 3 What is it, scientifically, that connects these isolated species on the famous chart if it is not fossil remains? And how could such unconnected examples demonstrate either genetic mutation or natural selection?

Even though, today, the bones themselves have been relegated to the basement, the famous chart with its unproven continuity still appears in museum displays and handbooks, text books, encyclopaedias and lectures.

Archaeopteryx:

The remarkable "Archaeopteryx" also seems at first glance to bear out the neo-Darwinian concept of birds having evolved from small reptiles (the candidate most favoured by neo-Darwinists is a small agile dinosaur called a Coelosaur, and this is the explanation offered by most text books and museums.) Actually, such a descent is impossible because coelosaurs, in common with most other dinosaurs, did not posses collar bones while "Archaeopteryx", like all birds, has a modified collar bone to support its pectoral muscles.4 Again, how can an isolated fossil, however remarkable, provide evidence of beneficial mutation or natural selection?

Molecular Biology:

Neo-Darwinists were quick to claim that modern discoveries of molecular biology supported their theory. They said, for example, that if you analyze the DNA, the genetic blueprint, of plants and animals you find how closely or distantly they are related. That studying DNA sequences enables you to draw up the precise family tree of all living things and show how they are related by common ancestry.

This is a very important claim and central to the theory. If true, it would mean that animals neo-Darwinists say are closely related, such as two reptiles, would have greater similarity in their DNA than animals that are not so closely related, such as a reptile and a bird.

Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA.

The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism. 5

Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale.

Further, if neo-Darwinist evolutionary ideas of gradual genetic change were true, then one would expect to find that simple organisms have simple DNA and complex organisms have complex DNA.

In some cases, this is true. The simple nematode worm is a favourite subject of laboratory study because its DNA contains a mere 100,000 nucleotide bases. At the other end of the complexity scale, humans have 23 chromosomes which in total contain 3,000 million nucleotide bases.

Unfortunately, this promisingly Darwinian progression is contradicted by many counter examples. While human DNA is contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes, the humble goldfish has more than twice as many, at 47. The even humbler garden snail -- not much more than a glob of slime in a shell -- has 27 chromosomes. Some species of rose bush have 56 chromosomes.

So the simple fact is that DNA analysis does _not_ confirm neo-Darwinist theory. In the laboratory, DNA analysis falsifies neo-Darwinist theory.

Tuatology:

An even more damaging blow to the theory was the discovery that the very centrepiece of neo-Darwinism, Darwin's original conception of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, is fatally flawed.

The problem is: how can biologists (or anyone else) tell what characteristics constitute the animal or plant's 'fitness' to survive? How can you tell which are the fit animals and plants?

The answer is that the only way to define the fit is by means of a post-hoc rationalisation -- the fit must be "those who survived". While the only way to characterise uniquely those who survive is as "the fit". The central proposition of the Darwinian argument turns out to be an empty tautology.

C.H. Waddington, professor of biology at Edinburgh University wrote; "Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognised relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave most offspring. Once the statement is made, its truth is
apparent." 6

George Simpson, professor of paleontology at Harvard, sought to restore content to the idea of natural selection by saying; "If genetically red-haired parents have, on average, a larger proportion of children than blondes or brunettes, then evolution will be in the direction of red hair. If genetically left-handed people have more children, evolution will be towards left-handedness. The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all. All that matters is who leaves more descendants over the generations. Natural selection favours fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do define it that way, which maybe confusing to others. To a geneticist, fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks, or anything but effectiveness in breeding." 7

Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint.

Simpson's reformulation means all this must be dropped: it is not the characteristics that directly matter -- it is the animals' capacity to reproduce themselves. The race is not to the swift, after all, but merely to the prolific. So how can neo-Darwinism explain the enormous diversity of characteristics?

ID – directed:

Not only are neo-Darwinist ideas falsified by empirical research, but other puzzling and extraordinary findings have come to light in recent decades, suggesting that evolution is not blind but rather is in some unknown way _directed_. The experiments of Cairns at Harvard and Hall at Rochester University suggest that microorganisms can mutate in a way that is beneficial.8

Experiments with tobacco plants and flax demonstrate genetic change through the effects of fertilizers alone.9 Experiments with sea squirts and salamanders as long ago as the 1920s appeared to demonstrate the inheritance of acquired characteristics.10 Moreover, as Sir Fred Hoyle has pointed out, Fossil micro-organisms have been found in meteorites, indicating that life is universal -- not a lucky break in the primeval soup. This view is shared by Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the function of DNA.11

Heresy and Censorship:

In the light of discoveries of this kind, the received wisdom of neo-Darwinism is no longer received so uncritically. A new generation of biologists is subjecting the theory to the cold light of empirical investigation and finding it inadequate; scientists like Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Dr Brian Goodwin, professor of biology at the Open University and Dr Peter Saunders, professor of mathematics at King's College London.

Not surprisingly, the work of this new generation is heresy to the old. When Rupert Sheldrake's book A New Science of Life with its revolutionary theory of morphic resonance was published in 1981, the editor of "Nature" magazine, John Maddox, ran an editorial calling for the book to be burned -- a sure sign that Sheldrake is onto something important, many will think. 12, 13
The current mood in biology was summed up recently by Sheldrake as, 'Rather like working in Russia under Brehznev. Many biologists have one set of beliefs at work, their official beliefs, and another set, their real beliefs, which they can speak openly about only among friends. They may treat living things as mechanical in the laboratory but when they go home they don't treat their families as inanimate machines.'

It is a strange aspect of science in the twentieth century that while physics has had to submit to the indignity of a principle of uncertainty and physicists have become accustomed to such strange entities as matter-waves and virtual particles, many of their colleagues down the corridor in biology seem not to have noticed the revolution of quantum electrodynamics. As far as many biologists are concerned, matter is made of billiard balls which collide with Newtonian certainty, and they carry on building molecular models out of coloured ping-pong balls.

One of the twentieth century's most distinguished scientists and Nobel laureates, physicist Max Planck, observed that; 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'

It may be another decade or more before such a new generation grows up and restores intellectual rigour to the study of evolutionary biology.

References
[1] Monod, Jacques, 1972 edn. Chance and Necessity. William Collins. Glasgow.
[2] Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.
[3] Simpson, George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.
[4] Norman, David. 1985. Encyclopaedia of Dinosaurs. Salamander Books. London.
[5] Patterson, Colin, presentation to the American Natural History Museum, 5 November 1981.
[6] Waddington, C.H., 1960, Evolutionary Adaptation in Tax Vol. 1, pp 381-402.
[7] Simpson, George G. 1964, This View of Life, Harcourt Brace and World. New York.
[8] Cairns, J., J. Overbaugh, S. Miller. 1988. The origin of mutants. In Nature 335: 142-145.
Hall, Barry G. Sept. 1990. Spontaneous point mutations that occur more often when advantageous than when neutral. In Genetics Vol. 126, pp. 5-16.
[9] Durrant, Alan. 1958. Environmental conditioning of flax. in Nature, Vol. 81, p. 928-929.
Hill, J. 1965. Environmental induction of heritable changes in Nicotiana rustica. in Nature, Vol. 207, pp. 732-734.
Cullis, C.A. 1977. Molecular aspects of the environmental induction of heritable changes in Flax. in Heredity. Vol. 38, p. 129-154.
[10] See Koestler, Arthur. 1978. The Case of the Midwife Toad. Hutchinson. London, for an account of the experiments of Paul Kammerer at the Vienna Institute for Experimental Biology 1903-1926.
[11] Hoyle, F. 1983. The Intelligent Universe. Michael Joseph London.
See also, Crick, Francis, 1981. Life Itself. Macdonald. London.
[12] Sheldrake, Rupert, 1988 edn. A New Science of Life, Paladin London.
[13] Nature 1981, Vol. 293, pp 245-246.

 

[Rick W]

http://antibioticresistance.blogspot.co ... teria.html

Antibiotic Resistance
News, Reports and Information relative to Emerging Viruses, Super Bugs, MSRA& Antibiotic Resistance

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Evolution at Work: Watching Bacteria Grow Drug Resistant

Day by day, the doctors unwittingly helped the bacteria infecting their young heart patient to evolve. The more intensively they treated his affliction with antibiotics, the more the microbes resisted the therapy.

In a strict medical sense, the young man, identified only as Patient X, died of complications from a congenital heart ailment and a Staphylococcus aureus infection.

More broadly, evolution killed him.

When Patient X was admitted to the hospital, he was already suffering from a Staphylococcus aureus infection, but it was still vulnerable to antibiotics. During treatment, however, the bacteria quickly developed stronger resistance to four antibiotics, including vancomycin, the drug of last resort for intractable infections, the scientists reported. As living bacteria, the Staph were driven to survive.

Every time the patient took his medicine, the antibiotics killed the weakest bacteria in his bloodstream. Any cell that had developed a protective mutation to defend itself against the drug survived, passing on its special trait to descendants. With every round of treatment, the cells refined their defenses through the trial and error of survival. "It means that during a normal course of treatment there is an evolutionary revolution going on in your body," said Stanford University biologist Stephen Plaumbi, author of "The Evolution Explosion: How Humans Cause Rapid Evolutionary Change."

When Patient X was admitted to the hospital, he was already suffering from a Staphylococcus aureus infection, but it was still vulnerable to antibiotics. During treatment, however, the bacteria quickly developed stronger resistance to four antibiotics, including vancomycin, the drug of last resort for intractable infections, the scientists reported. As living bacteria, the Staph were driven to survive.

Every time the patient took his medicine, the antibiotics killed the weakest bacteria in his bloodstream. Any cell that had developed a protective mutation to defend itself against the drug survived, passing on its special trait to descendants. With every round of treatment, the cells refined their defenses through the trial and error of survival. "It means that during a normal course of treatment there is an evolutionary revolution going on in your body," said Stanford University biologist Stephen Plaumbi, author of "The Evolution Explosion: How Humans Cause Rapid Evolutionary Change."

The Rockefeller researchers believe that a better understanding of evolution will lead to better antibiotic treatments. They want to disable the genes that allow these disease bacteria to mutate and adapt.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7287453.stm

Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 00:51 GMT

UK team in bacteria breakthrough

Scientists have new hopes of restoring penicillin's full antibiotic effect after discovering how a bacterium which causes pneumonia has become resistant.

The work by UK scientists could also lead to the creation of new designer drugs to tackle diseases such as MRSA.

The University of Warwick team focused on Streptococcus pneumoniae, which kills 5m children a year worldwide.

In recent years, it has been one of a growing number of bacteria which have become resistant to penicillin.

Penicillin, discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928, became the first widely used antibiotic in the 1940s.

Penicillin normally acts by preventing the construction of an essential component of the bacterial cell wall called the Peptidoglycan.

This component provides a protective mesh around the otherwise fragile bacterial cell.

The researchers focused on a protein called MurM which has been linked to changes in the chemical make-up of the peptidoglycan observed in patients infected with penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.

They found that the protein acted as an enzyme, playing a key role in the formation of structures within the peptidoglycan which build up its strength.

The higher the levels of MurM activity, the stronger the peptidoglycan became, and the more likely the bacterium would be drug resistant as a result.

Repeated in test tube

The Warwick team, whose study appears in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, were able to replicate the activity of MurM in a test tube, allowing them to study in close detail exactly how it is deployed by Streptococcus pneumoniae to neutralise penicillin.

It is hoped the results will allow researchers to develop new drugs which block bacterial resistance by disrupting the chemistry of MurM.

This could be key not only for Streptococcus pneumoniae, but also for other bacteria, such as MRSA, which also appear to rely on the same chemistry to build resistance.

Researcher Dr Adrian Lloyd said it was possible that new drugs could be developed in two to three years.

He said: "Because we now know in detail what this protein needs to be able to do its job and promote bacterial resistance we should be able to develop drugs to stop it from doing so."

Professor Kevin Kerr, a consultant microbiologist at Harrogate District Hospital, said the findings were interesting, but much more work was needed.

He said: "Solving the problem of penicillin resistance in pneumococci is a key priority for modern medicine and these results provide an important piece in the puzzle.

"The challenge must now be to see if this discovery can be exploited through the identification and development of new drugs which can inhibit this enzyme."

Evolution at Work: Watching Bacteria Grow Drug Resistant

They want to disable the genes that allow these disease bacteria to mutate and adapt.



UK team in bacteria breakthrough

Because we now know in detail what this protein needs to be able to do its job and promote bacterial resistance

 

[Rick W]

Breakthrough may restore penicillin's effectiveness against resistant bacteria

March 14, 2008, 2:00 PM

Big news from the bacterial world today, as a new study by researchers in the U.K., Canada and U.S. could return penicillin to the front lines of the battle against antibiotic-resistant superbugs that kill millions.

The team uncovered how the bacteria builds its immunity to penicillin, illuminating new avenues to disrupt that process and restore penicillin's effectiveness against these bacteria.

I've searched CNN for anything about this and turned up nothing. No mention at all.
A major health breakthrough like this and it's deemed by CNN as unworthy of mention? Why?

 

[Guest]

Please tell me what Ernst Haeckle has to do with anything. Wikipedia says that there was some scandal over some drawings of embryos he drew. It also says that these have nothing to do with ToE or common descent,

The wild story telling of how "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" was foisted onto the public and into so-called SCIENCE text books for almost 50 years based on the wild "story telling -- stories easy enough to make up but not Science" of Haeckle as he fraudulent claimed to represent embryonic stages in humans that perfectly matched those of various animals. He simply "edited" the presentation so that it LOOKED like what was "NEEDED" in the "Story telling". Worked well for about 50 years.

Firstly, I find it rather amusing that you continue to use this "Story-telling" line from Patterson, even after I've destroyed it multiple times. Bringing up a point where you've annihilated the opponent in the past is a common forum technique sometimes known as 'salting the earth' to rub it in the opponent's face.

I've never seen anyone do it to themselves like this, because every time you say it, reminds me and everyone else who was reading the other thread that you have no idea how evolution works, or what Patterson was saying, further undermining your credibility.

Haekle denied the allegations against any form of falsification with the exception of one mistake which he corrected himself. Haekle put forward a theory, just like Darwin and has since been proved wrong. Hence the theory was dismissed. Science dismisses theories when they are proved wrong. It does not make the old theories fraud, it makes them wrong. Haekle looked at the evidence he had and made a conclusion, just like whoever invented violent force in my example with the arrow. Then more evidence came along and the theory became obsolete.

Both sides of the point you are arguing are actually simply proofs that Evolution is science, because fraud or no fraud, evolution has changed in light of new evidence, "following the data where it leads" to use your favourite term. Religions don't change (How old is genesis?). You just proved that evolution did.

I take it that's enough for you to realise the error of calling it "Darwinism"?

The FRAUD comes when the scientist WANT's to "tell a story" but has no facts to back it up so HE MAKES IT UP and COVERS UP the source sufficiently so those being DUPED can not see the gap between what they are being TOLD and what the scientist actually knows to be TRUE.

Oh here we go, out with the irony and a particularly juicy piece at that. Might I ask what Kent Hovind is doing at this very moment? Watching Hovind's videos leads the average viewer to one of two conclusions.

1) He's clinically retarded.
2) He's lying on purpose.

I like to think it's the second one. I don't think it's possible for someone to actually believe things like "An ice meteor caused the polar ice caps and froze the mamoths" and "There was a magically floating shell of ice about 3 inches thick several thousand metres up in the atmosphere".

There are so many more of them though! That "Peanut butter is an atheist's worst nightmare" guy, the "Banana proves god" guy, every creationist who's ever appeared on video saying "If evolution is true why aren't we born as monkeys?" or "Why doesn't my cat evolve into a dog?"

Each of those cases goes straight back to option one or option two and the fact they managed to get the video machine working in the first place screams option two to me. These people are grown men, I am certain that had they read a single article on Wikipedia before spouting forth they must have known. However, being right wasn't on their agenda, they just wanted to sell it to you, who would buy it.


What was the ninth commandment again? I'm sure it was somehow relevant to the behaviour of these good Christians?

For someone accusing science of fraud, there are a lot of CONVICTED frauds on your side.
But coming back to Haeckle, like I said, he denied that he had tampered with anything and there has been no proof of fraud since the case was reopened in 2000, 80 years after his death.

The Darwinists KNEW they were presenting "A lot of guessing about nothing more than a TOOTH" in their Nebraska MAN wild invention of "Stories easy enough to make up".

Correction. ONE person made up a lot of theories about a tooth. Then the media sensationalised it and it became a scandal when it was proven wrong. Proven wrong by other scientists, who (your logic would denote) should be fighting to prove each and every aspect of evolution as it stood.
In the scientific community, putting forward a suggestion like "This tooth came from an ape" is not a 'story' it's a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested and if it is found to be right, it is accepted. If the hypothesis is wrong, it is discarded. In this case, it was found to be wrong - and evolution once again demonstrated that it was subject to change due to empirical evidence. Science.

2. Simpson published Marsh's fraudulent ARRANGEMENT (fabricated SEQUENCE out of whole cloth) in the early 1950's and then later found the PROBLEM with claiming that the sequence was legit - was SCIENCE.

Ok, hold up, who's Simpson? I need to read an unbiased account of this before I can make up my mind on it. Find me something NPOV like Wikipedia. Link me to "Answers in Genesis" and you will be ignored.

 

[Guest]

It took a bit of legwork to find a NPOV source reporting it, but the Guardian paper in the UK reported it. From the evidence I have it would appear as if Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was indeed a fraud.

Carefull - you are stepping away from your "Deny all" solution.

What convinced you to budge even an inch??

Facts. Same as what convinces any scientist of anything. If an NPOV source says he's a fraud, he probably is. Of course, that's very poor logic, but seeing as you never give any sources to your examples, if I can be bothered finding out about them, I have to do it myself.

Taking what you say as fact has historically proven a very bad idea, due to your habit of misquoting people and generally bearing false witness to information. If I am to believe something, it needs to come from a reputable source that can be called to account.

'Deny-all solution' is another display of your flair for the ironic, seeing as to deny evolution is to literally deny the existence of about 150 years of documented, experimental research.

However, guess who revealed him to be a fraud? No it wasn't creationists, it was other scientists at the University of Oxford. Scientists who according to you would go to any lengths to protect ToE. Selling out one of their own..

Earth to XoM -- ALL my examples of fraud of HOAXES and of "stories easy enough MAKE UP but they are not SCIENCE" are examples where CONFIRMED ATHEIST DARWINISTS are blowing the whistle on their own hoax-miester projects!!

*Adds this to the steadily increasing list of "points that Bob has totally missed"*

None of the "Atheist Darwinists" who have uncovered these errors disagree with evolution, much less agree with intelligent design. You are repeating me with a few more negative connotations, but the argument remains the same:

If evolution is a religion like you say it is, then why would they betray their own AND still support ToE?

There is NO logical reason why anyone would do that. If 'Darwinism' was a religion, doing that and invalidating part of the doctrine would be comparable to a Christian saying that Jesus didn't exist. Would you ever say in the presence of your church that Jesus never existed? I don't think so, so why would an 'Atheist Darwinist' call out a colleague on something that is mutually beneficial to their cause?

The only logical conclusion is that evolution is not a religion, but just a science that is flexible to change with evidence. To "follow the data where it leads" even, just to add some irony of my own into the mix.

Science doesn't like frauds, we throw them out to keep the fountain of knowledge clear of anything but what has been proven. Scientists are vultures, the whole lot of them. If you publish a bad finding and we can disprove it, we'll set on you and rip it to shreds in a flash. The rare cases of true fraud are very quickly disposed of.

 

[Guest]

A quick read of the Nebraska man article on Wikipedia shows exactly what I figured it would be. Nebraska man was an honest mistake not a fraud

Wrong -- again!!

However "TRICK the world into believing a lie" was the only point you did get right in your "research".. Nebraska man was no man at all -- it was merely a pig TOOTH found in Nebraska.

So what FRAUD is then foisted onto 'the word' using that pig tooth? Well they use it in the scopes trial NOT as "a tooth" but rather as AN ENTIRE Nebraska man -- FAMILY gathered around the cave camp fire -- Nebraska MAN, Nebraska WOMAN and their little clan -- the LIFE and times of Nebraska man - Presented in the SCOPES trial to DUPE an unsuspecting judge and jury into THINKING that they had ACTUAL facts in front of them -- when all it was in truth was "Stories EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP". In fact a "pig tooth making a monkey out of a trial for the whole world to SEE"

Again, making mentions of things like a 'scopes' trial without actually telling me what it is or giving me any links to NPOV articles on it.

I looked it up on Wikipedia and wow, what a farce!
I don't know what the state of the matter is now, but such unconstitutional censorship as to pass a law like that is ludicrous, and quite frankly would only happen in America. Wikipedia claims that the scopes trial was largely viewed as a publicity stunt and makes no mention of the Nebraska man whatsoever.

My argument stands. At the time, the tooth was considered to be that of an ape. Running with that as fact and comparing it to the other ape skulls available would give a good indication of what the ape looked like and how it acted. This is not a hoax, this is science accepting a hypothesis until it was disproven.

The rest of us would prefer LESS story telling and more SCIENCE!

If this is your definition of 'story-telling' then it is impossible to give you anything purer. Everything in science since the history of EVER, has started out as an unconfirmed hypothesis. Experiments are then conducted and if the hypothesis passes the test, it is maintained. If it fails the test, it is discarded. Pass enough tests and the hypothesis becomes a theory, just like the theory of evolution, and is agreed upon as fact.

It is harder to imagine a better example of the scientific method in practice than the hypothesis and subsequent invalidation of the Nebraska man. There is a huge difference between a mistake corrected and an outright fraud. Mistakes are what science make, frauds are what Kent Hovind and other creationists get thrown in jail for. :-D

 

[BobRyan]

If this is your definition of 'story-telling' then it is impossible to give you anything purer.
..
It is harder to imagine a better example of the scientific method in practice than the hypothesis and subsequent invalidation of the Nebraska man. There is a huge difference between a mistake corrected and an outright fraud. Mistakes are what science make, frauds are what Kent Hovind and other creationists get thrown in jail for. :-D

HMM - it is AMAZING that just where atheists darwinists THEMSELVES point to Osborns perfidity in pretending not to know about the extreme level of dubious GUESSWORK that served as the junk-science CORE of his wild "APE MAN" claims --

there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

yet you claim this as your BEST example of Darwinist religionists avoiding their typical junk-science methods!!


From
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&start=330#p396602

lordkalvan wrote:
^ The point, Bob, is that you throw around words like 'fraud' with careless abandon. '

Are you familiar AT ALL with the Neanderthal fraud or Earnst Haeckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" fraud or the Piltdown fraud or the "Never happened in nature - so how could it be displayed" fact of Simpon's reproduction of Marsh's fictitious horse fossil sequence?

You see L.K -- Fraud' has a particular meaning, namely suggesting the intent to deceive

1. Presenting what DID NOT happen in nature -- as if it is SHOWN to have happened.
2. Presenting Ontogeny that you DID NOT find --as if you did
3. Presenting 20,000 year old dating arguments for Neanderthals AS IF they had been measured and confirmed by radiometric testing -- when they HAD NOT
4. Presenting the APE-Man Piltdown AS IF it were a REAL fossil find instead of fraudulent contrived.

The "intent to deceive" is clear.

And even in the argument in TALKORIGINS the INTENT is clearly shown when it comes to Osborn AVOIDING the risk of being questioned at a time when even HE was being convinced of the false nature of his APE-MAN (i.e pigs-tooth) claim because he wanted the PUBLIC not to question.

[quote:9h8mgmm0]
And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution

Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

[/quote:9h8mgmm0]

Did you notice the degree to which TalkOrigins just appealed to the reader to JOIN with Osborn in that spirit of deception all in sacrifice for crafting "the public image of evolutionism"!!!

Notice that they appear to APPLAUD him for taking deceptive steps to AVOID letting the TRUTH come out about the uncertainty of his wild pig's tooth claim for "Ape Man"

WHEN truth is not FAVORABLE to darwinist's story telling it is best to keep it AWAY from the public!

As the author of the TalkOrigins article argues the point --- is to CRAFT favorable "public perception" of Darwinism RATHER than fully appraise the public of the dark junk-science nature of the GUESSWORK being employed.

What kind of moral standard do they suppose their readers HAVE to make such an argument!!???

Now and then I DO agree with TALK ORIGINS

Ironically, the similarity between peccary teeth and those of hominids had been noted 13 years before Osborn published his description of Hesperopithecus. In 1909, W. D. Matthew and Harold Cook had the following to say in describing Prosthennops: [quote:9h8mgmm0]"The anterior molars and premolars of this genus of peccaries show a startling resemblance to the teeth of Anthropoidea, and might well be mistaken for them by anyone not familiar with the dentition of Miocene peccaries."

(p. 390) Matthew was Osborn's younger colleague at the American Museum of Natural History, and there is no way that Osborn could not have known about this 1909 warning.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
[/quote:9h8mgmm0]

since you so diligently remind us of the junk-science methods used in the Nebraska Man -- Ape-Man example-- I have to assume you simply are not aware of the junk-science history of Nebraska man -- your stellar example of TRUE science for which you claim that a better example of it would be "HARD TO IMAGINE".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

2. Simpson published Marsh's fraudulent ARRANGEMENT (fabricated SEQUENCE out of whole cloth) in the early 1950's and then later found the PROBLEM with claiming that the sequence was legit - was SCIENCE.

Ok, hold up, who's Simpson? I need to read an unbiased account of this before I can make up my mind on it. Find me something NPOV like Wikipedia. Link me to "Answers in Genesis" and you will be ignored.

Continue to quote only junk-science atheiist-darwinist sources and you too will be ignored (at least by some on this board. ;-) :

So now let me see -- I need to show you what Simpson said ABOUT HIS OWN junk-science Horse series presentation -- but of course "we can only trust ATHEISTS" in this "objective discussion".

How "instructiive" for the unbiased objective reader!!

HOW is it that people can become so befuddled and confused as to come to a CHRISTIAN message board and then insist that ONLY ATHEISTS can be trusted!!!

It is beyond explanation!

Fine -- let the atheist-iconic-leadership of all darwinist devotees be heard!!

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."â€â€G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

SIMPSON reveals the problem just TWO years after the initial fraud was published – but it was too late to stop the train – “the horse was out of the barnâ€Â!!

(“Obviously†the claim we make here is NOT that Simpson is no longer an atheist Darwinist evolutionist.). No doubt he clings to evolutionism “anyway†and as a true devotee to Darwinism faithfully hopes for another “best example†to come along

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."â€â€George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

 

[BobRyan]

Now having informed the objective unbiased reader of the sordid junk-science history behind the 1951 Horse-sequence fiction as well as Obsborn's Nebraska Man "Ape man" fiction (as seen in my two posts above) -- let us contrast that system of dubious story telling with the clean PROVEN example of ID SCIENCE as we see it in the study of well-formed ID apparent EM wave forms (Radio on scan anyone?) and also in this stellar example of cell biology --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33266#p395365

Bob