“Why should anyone bother trying to respond to you?”
Beats me.
Why?
“to the devastating takedown done by the National Center for Science Education”
I haven’t seen that.
Lurkers, have you seen any “devastating takedown done by the National Center for Science Education”?
4:14
The Eye and Irreducible Complexity – Creationism Debunked
“And then you add a lens, and that’s an improvement as well.”
A sequence consisting of how many amino acids is involved in the formation of an eye lens?
How did natural selection + mutation (with the random mutations occurring in germ line cells) happen upon an amino acid sequence that codes for a usable eye lens?
“seen any ‘devastating takedown done by the National Center for Science Education’?”
“Yes”
with a link to
Analysis of the Discovery Institute’s Bibliography
** you do not have permission to see this link **
On March 11, 2002, the Discovery Institute — a Seattle, Washington, organization that seeks to promote “intelligent design” — submitted its “Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Education” to the Ohio Board of Education.
Do you believe that that analysis of a 2002 bibliography from 20+ years ago demolished once and for all pro-Intelligent Design arguments?
What do you think was responsible for the Cambrian explosion?
Douglas Erwin & James Valentine, _The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity_ (2013), in the section “A Tractable but Unresolved Problem”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 330
The patterns of disparity observed during the Cambrian pose two unresolved questions.
First, what evolutionary processes produced the gaps between the morphologies of major clades?
Second, why have the morphologic boundaries of these body plans remained relatively stable over the past half a billion years?
After all, there is no a priori reason clades could not display a pattern of rapid exploration of morphologic space, coupled by subsequent expansion of that space during the Phanerozoic, but it is not a pattern commonly observed among the bilaterian metazoans.
“in practice, we find that incongruence between molecular trees (generated from different data sets or by different analytical methods) is as striking or pervasive as is incongruence between trees generated by morphologists in the long history of their discipline”
Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Abstract
Phylogenies based on molecular sequence data and on morphology are surveyed and compared within animals (concentrating on vertebrates, mammals, and hominids in particular) and within plants (concentrating on Asterales, angiosperms, seed plants, and major groups of “green plants”).
The theoretical problem of assessing congruence between trees generated from different data sets is still unsolved.
However, in practice, we find that incongruence between molecular trees (generated from different data sets or by different analytical methods) is as striking or pervasive as is incongruence between trees generated by morphologists in the long history of their discipline.
Morphologists achieved much during that time, and none of their well-supported phylogenies is overthrown by molecular data.
So far, molecular sequences have contributed most significantly in areas where morphological data are inconclusive, deficient, nonexistent, or poorly analyzed.
The interrelationships of extant hominines (Gorilla, Homo, Pan), where morphology is inconclusive, are exemplary.
The pattern [Gorilla [Homo, Pan]] is significantly favored by nucleotide sequence data, but the effort necessary to achieve resolution in that simple case (ca. 30 kb of aligned sequences, sampling all four extant species) may foreshadow the workload that lies ahead.
“it’s a refutation and repudiation by the scientific authors themselves”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“For example, Douglas H. Erwin (author of [8]), answered, ‘… _Nothing_ in this paper or any of my other work provides the slightest scintilla of support for ‘intelligent design’. …”
What do you think was responsible for the Cambrian explosion?
Douglas Erwin & James Valentine, _The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity_ (2013), in the section “A Tractable but Unresolved Problem”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 330
The patterns of disparity observed during the Cambrian pose two unresolved questions.
First, what evolutionary processes produced the gaps between the morphologies of major clades?
Second, why have the morphologic boundaries of these body plans remained relatively stable over the past half a billion years?
After all, there is no a priori reason clades could not display a pattern of rapid exploration of morphologic space, coupled by subsequent expansion of that space during the Phanerozoic, but it is not a pattern commonly observed among the bilaterian metazoans.
Is this accurate as of today in 2024?: “there is no published work in the peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting intelligent design”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University reported at the March 11 panel discussion in Columbus, there is no published work in the peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting intelligent design.[3]
3: See “State board studying theories on start of life,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 12, 2002…
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.
Download the full bibliography in PDF format.
[links to
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Not to distract from Robert’s more important line of questioning, but:
Is this accurate as of today in 2024?: “there is no published work in the peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting intelligent design”
I picked one of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** at random (it happened to be the first entry on their longer bibliography):
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Can you quote for me the passage where it lends support to the intelligent design theory?
Here is one more that caught my eye:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Where does that one say anything about intelligent design?
..there is no published work in the peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting intelligent design…
The Almighty yieldeth not to peer review since none exists. Let there be Cambrian biodiversification, He said, and it was so! Unfortunately the brains of creationists and ID advocates are without form, and void.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“But make no mistake: quote-mining is neither scholarship nor research.
It is propaganda.”
Do you see any out-of-context quotes within here?
Essay “Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)