Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[Autodidact]

I am familiar with the dinosaur argument. I thought I would get something else. The dynosaur hypothesis did not convince me then and does not convince me now. It also does not convince some experts such as Michael Denton. I find his argument more convincing and credible.

*Falls about the floor laughing at someone calling Michael Denton an expert on avian evolution*

 

[Autodidact]

If I understand Denton's "argument" correctly, he's saying that birds could not possibly have evolved from dinosaurs, because their lungs are so different. Specifically, a unidirectional flow could not evolve from a circulatory flow. This is a variation on a common ID argument, that feature A, B, or C could not possibly evolve, there is no possible evolutionary pathway to A, B, or C, therefore God must have designed this feature ex nihilo.

Without going into the details of avian anatomy, which I leave to those more knowledgeable, it is easy to see the flaws with the structure of this argument.

First, it rests on an assertion that there is no possible evolutionary pathway. Thus, to disprove it, it is not necessary to figure out exactly how the thing evolved, just that one can imagine a possible evolutionary pathway. Even I can well imagine a possible evolutionary pathway from a circulatory system to a unidirectional one, and I bet sandor can too.

Second, it a god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance. Yes, everything else evolved, as you have shown, but God designed bird's lungs. (And apparently, the tail of a E. coli) but not much else. So instead of a grand, all-powerful God, you get a teeny little tinkering God.

And it presumes that science will not solve the problem. But history shows that science does tend to solve problems eventually (for all I know it may have solved this one already) and that is how we progress. Just because at one time we didn't know where lightning came from did not mean we should stop researching it, attribute it to God, and be done. If God created lightning, it is still worth learning exactly how. In the same way, whether or not God made birds, it is worth continuing to research and find out how. With Denton (and sandor's) God, that would make God even smaller and more puny, because they have made the mistake of opposing God and science. If you assume rather that there is a God, and science studies how he made things, God never has to shrink as our knowledge expands.

Finally, Denton makes the mistake of assuming that if he disproves ToE (which he has not done) the default is his magic poofing hypothesis. Even if ToE were wrong, that would not imply that Magic Poofing is right. It would mean further research to find out what hypothesis is correct. So far, the one hypothesis that has stood the test of time and continues to explain all the relevant phenomena, including bird lungs, is ToE.

 

[sandor606]

*Falls about the floor laughing at someone calling Michael Denton an expert on avian evolution*

He is an expert in developmental biology in which he had a Ph.D. from Kings College.
From WIKI: Developmental biology is the study of the process by which organisms grow and develop. Modern developmental biology studies the genetic control of cell growth, differentiation and "morphogenesis," which is the process that gives rise to tissues, organs and anatomy. (italics mine)

I say that this specialty eminently qualifies him as an expert in evolution in general, and the evolution of the wing as an organ in particular. He is as qualified in this field as are the authors of the articles on bird evolution you posted. If you reject my expert, I will reject yours and the discussion ends.

 

[sandor606]

If I understand Denton's "argument" correctly, he's saying that birds could not possibly have evolved from dinosaurs, because their lungs are so different. Specifically, a unidirectional flow could not evolve from a circulatory flow. This is a variation on a common ID argument, that feature A, B, or C could not possibly evolve, there is no possible evolutionary pathway to A, B, or C, therefore God must have designed this feature ex nihilo.

Without going into the details of avian anatomy, which I leave to those more knowledgeable, it is easy to see the flaws with the structure of this argument.

First, it rests on an assertion that there is no possible evolutionary pathway. Thus, to disprove it, it is not necessary to figure out exactly how the thing evolved, just that one can imagine a possible evolutionary pathway. Even I can well imagine a possible evolutionary pathway from a circulatory system to a unidirectional one, and I bet sandor can too.

Second, it a god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance. Yes, everything else evolved, as you have shown, but God designed bird's lungs. (And apparently, the tail of a E. coli) but not much else. So instead of a grand, all-powerful God, you get a teeny little tinkering God.

And it presumes that science will not solve the problem. But history shows that science does tend to solve problems eventually (for all I know it may have solved this one already) and that is how we progress. Just because at one time we didn't know where lightning came from did not mean we should stop researching it, attribute it to God, and be done. If God created lightning, it is still worth learning exactly how. In the same way, whether or not God made birds, it is worth continuing to research and find out how. With Denton (and sandor's) God, that would make God even smaller and more puny, because they have made the mistake of opposing God and science. If you assume rather that there is a God, and science studies how he made things, God never has to shrink as our knowledge expands.

Finally, Denton makes the mistake of assuming that if he disproves ToE (which he has not done) the default is his magic poofing hypothesis. Even if ToE were wrong, that would not imply that Magic Poofing is right. It would mean further research to find out what hypothesis is correct. So far, the one hypothesis that has stood the test of time and continues to explain all the relevant phenomena, including bird lungs, is ToE.

You speak with much confidence and criticize Denton; what academic background do you have that makes you such an expert? I know what Denton's is and it's impressive. I assume yours isn't, certainly not in developmental biology. Autodidact, your intellectual arrogance is amazing. Whatever the case, your criticisms are falling on deaf ears; you are not convincing me anymore than I am convincing you, so here the matter rests. Let's call it a big nothing and go get a drink.

Bottoms up.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually he has a PhD in Biochemistry not Developmental biology.... you're being loose with your facts again. :tsk:

Biochemistry does not qualify him to discuss paleontology.... it does qualify him to discuss protein folding which he did in his latest paper.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

If I understand Denton's "argument" correctly, he's saying that birds could not possibly have evolved from dinosaurs, because their lungs are so different. Specifically, a unidirectional flow could not evolve from a circulatory flow. This is a variation on a common ID argument, that feature A, B, or C could not possibly evolve, there is no possible evolutionary pathway to A, B, or C, therefore God must have designed this feature ex nihilo.

Without going into the details of avian anatomy, which I leave to those more knowledgeable, it is easy to see the flaws with the structure of this argument.

First, it rests on an assertion that there is no possible evolutionary pathway. Thus, to disprove it, it is not necessary to figure out exactly how the thing evolved, just that one can imagine a possible evolutionary pathway. Even I can well imagine a possible evolutionary pathway from a circulatory system to a unidirectional one, and I bet sandor can too.

Second, it a god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance. Yes, everything else evolved, as you have shown, but God designed bird's lungs. (And apparently, the tail of a E. coli) but not much else. So instead of a grand, all-powerful God, you get a teeny little tinkering God.

And it presumes that science will not solve the problem. But history shows that science does tend to solve problems eventually (for all I know it may have solved this one already) and that is how we progress. Just because at one time we didn't know where lightning came from did not mean we should stop researching it, attribute it to God, and be done. If God created lightning, it is still worth learning exactly how. In the same way, whether or not God made birds, it is worth continuing to research and find out how. With Denton (and sandor's) God, that would make God even smaller and more puny, because they have made the mistake of opposing God and science. If you assume rather that there is a God, and science studies how he made things, God never has to shrink as our knowledge expands.

Finally, Denton makes the mistake of assuming that if he disproves ToE (which he has not done) the default is his magic poofing hypothesis. Even if ToE were wrong, that would not imply that Magic Poofing is right. It would mean further research to find out what hypothesis is correct. So far, the one hypothesis that has stood the test of time and continues to explain all the relevant phenomena, including bird lungs, is ToE.

You speak with much confidence and criticize Denton; what academic background you have that makes you such an expert? I know what Denton's is and it's impressive; I assume yours isn't, certainly not in developmental biology. Autodidact, the height of your intellectual arrogance is truly amazing. Let's call our discussion a big nothing and go get a drink.

 

[Autodidact]

He is an expert in developmental biology in which he had a Ph.D. from Kings College.
From WIKI: Developmental biology is the study of the process by which organisms grow and develop. Modern developmental biology studies the genetic control of cell growth, differentiation and "morphogenesis," which is the process that gives rise to tissues, organs and anatomy. (italics mine)

I say that this specialty eminently qualifies him as an expert in evolution in general, and the evolution of the wing as an organ in particular. He is as qualified in this field as are the authors of the articles on bird evolution you posted. If you reject my expert, I will reject yours and the discussion ends.

You're mistaken. Denton is a biochemist.

 

[sandor606]

Actually he has a PhD in Biochemistry not Developmental biology.... you're being loose with your facts again. :tsk:

Biochemistry does not qualify him to discuss paleontology.... it does qualify him to discuss protein folding which he did in his latest paper.

wa:do

On the inside of the back cover jacket of his "Nature's Destiny" it says that his Ph.D. is in developmental biology. Since this is from his book I assume the info. is true. I believe yours is from WIKI. At any case, when it comes to the credibility of the evidence, imo what is printed in his book is more credible than than what is in other secondary sources - except for the actual University diploma, of course.

 

[Autodidact]

You speak with much confidence and criticize Denton; what academic background do you have that makes you such an expert? I know what Denton's is and it's impressive. I assume yours isn't, certainly not in developmental biology. Autodidact, your intellectual arrogance is amazing. Whatever the case, your criticisms are falling on deaf ears; you are not convincing me anymore than I am convincing you, so here the matter rests. Let's call it a big nothing and go get a drink.

Bottoms up.

So I take it you have no substantive response to my arguments, and can only resort to a misplaced argument from authority. I really don't care whether I convince you or not, sandor. Now do you have anything substantive to say?

Your argument from authority fails because the world's most prominent paleontologists endorse the hypothesis that birds are dinosaurs.

 

[Autodidact]

But you're not asking us to believe the book jacket, sandor, you're asking us to believe what you are telling us about the book jacket. And we already know that we can't believe what you say even about yourself, so we don't. Denton is a biochemist or wiki is wrong. I suggest you correct it and see what happens.

btw, did you know that Denton has given up his opposition to evolution, and now argues that the fact that evolution happens is evidence that the Creator fine-tuned the argument for life? Nature's Destiny, Michael Denton. So since you accept his authority, do you now accept that evolution happens?

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually, in Nature's Destiny Denton fully embraces evolution and universal common descent, and all via natural means.

His argument is that the process itself was inevitable due to the initial "design" of the universe. I've posted this excerpt several times now...

"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school"."

So how is it that a person begins a book with that statement, but then apparently argues against the evolutionary common ancestry of two taxa?

Hmmmmm.......

 

[Jose Fly]

And once again, we see Sandor's argument is essentially, "It says so in this book, and this guy has degrees, therefore it is true".

One could make an equivalent argument for the earth being stationary and orbited by the sun.

 

[painted wolf]

I have never seen a reference to him as developmental biologist.... not even on the back cover of his book "Evolution: a theory in crisis" where it clearly calls him a molecular biologist.

The same goes for lists on him with the Discovery Institute and Answers In Genesis....

His scientific research is in Molecular biology (not developmental biology) and how it relates to genetic disorders.... (again not developmental)

ON a side note I did find this quote from Denton very interesting:

There are various forms of teleological theories, extending from Creationist intervention theories to nature mysticism. But these theories are (I don't want to be derogatory) an occultist type of theory. You can't really find any evidence that such phenomena are operating in nature, but you can see that natural selection can operate. This is a great strength of Darwinism.

Interview with Michael Denton. Origins Research 15:2

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

sandor. You brought Denton in specifically with regard to the idea the birds descended from dinosaurs, saying that you thought his explanation was more convincing. What is Denton's explanation of the origin of birds? Can you describe the mechanism?

 

[sandor606]

sandor. You brought Denton in specifically with regard to the idea the birds descended from dinosaurs, saying that you thought his explanation was more convincing. What is Denton's explanation of the origin of birds? Can you describe the mechanism?

Denton does not say what the origin of birds may be; what he says and provides evidence for is that they could not have descended from dinosaurs because of the uniqueness of the feather and the lung. Here, in his own words, is a summary of his opinion concerning the feather:
"It is true that basically a feather is inded a frayed scale - a mass of keratin filaments - but the filaments are not a random tangle but are ordered in an amazingly complex way to achieve the tightly intertwined structure of the feather. Take away the exquisite coadaptation of the components, take away the coadaptation of hooks and barbules, take away the pricisely parallel arrangement of the barbs on the shaft and all that is left is a soft pliable structure utterly unsuitable to form the basis of a stiff impervious aerofoil. The stiff impervious property of the feather which makes it so beautiful an adaptation for flight, depends basically on such a highly involved system of coadapted components that it seems impossible that any transitional feather-like structure could posses even to a slight degree the crucial properties.'" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p.209)

 

[Autodidact]

So your argument is entirely negative? Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs and you have no idea where they came from? Is that your position?

btw, I asked you some time ago, and you failed to answer, are you arguing that no new species ever comes into existence, but every species has existed on earth in its present form since...I don't know, sandor, since when, you tell us.

 

[sandor606]

I have never seen a reference to him as developmental biologist.... not even on the back cover of his book "Evolution: a theory in crisis" where it clearly calls him a molecular biologist.

The same goes for lists on him with the Discovery Institute and Answers In Genesis....

His scientific research is in Molecular biology (not developmental biology) and how it relates to genetic disorders.... (again not developmental)

ON a side note I did find this quote from Denton very interesting:

Interview with Michael Denton. Origins Research 15:2

wa:do

I wrote what it says on the back cover. Whatever the case, If you reject my witness there is nothing else left to say.

 

[painted wolf]

you know anyone can look at the back cover for themselves at Amazon.... no mention of developmental biology...
Amazon.com: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis: Michael Denton: Books

Not that anyone would be surprised I'm sure... your 'witness' has already been shown to be, shall we say... suspect.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

sandor: Earlier you asked why your personal credibility should have any bearing on the strength of your argument. I will give two answers.

1. It's hard to make an argument without any credibility.
2. Common folk wisdom tells us that if something were true, you wouldn't have to lie to convince of that truth.

 

[sandor606]

And once again, we see Sandor's argument is essentially, "It says so in this book, and this guy has degrees, therefore it is true".

One could make an equivalent argument for the earth being stationary and orbited by the sun.

You take me for a total moron. No, I study the book, highlight it, digest the info. and think about it critically. The fact that it is written by an expert (for me a person with a Ph.D in the field) makes the info. more credible, though not infallible, of course.