Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Probably no interest here, but here is another case where a prominent scientist is black balled from Wikipedia for his recognition of ID as 'not religious creationism'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqiXgtDdEwM

After his public disclosure of his position on ID in 2015, his entry in Wikipedia was deleted. He had suddenly become 'not significant enough to warrant an entry' according to the anti ID zealots at Wiki.

He admitted at the get-go, that he hqd never read "Of the Origin of SPecies...". So this guy , claimed to be an authority on Paleontology, had never ever read Darwin???

Sounds like a spoof. Do you have an example of what he wrote on Wikipedia??. Ive seen some shat about 9/11 that was taken down too.

Just because something is removed from Wikipedia doesnt automatically regale it with credibility. I realize Wiki gets it fucked up many times but they do get it right more often.

Why not try to find the article before we are asked to judge validity of a services editing policy.

Maybe I can find it on Conservipedia thats waay more friendly to Evangelical Christian views

I won't throw the accusation of 'liar' like Set is wont to do so I must assume you just misunderstood Blechly. It was the books on ID that he had not read before setting up the museum display with the balance, NOT Darwin's 'The Origin of Species'.

He made it clear that at the time, he believed the weight of evidence was all on Darwin's side and that ID was based on religious zealotry. That was before he read the books on ID.

But if I'm wrong and you were lying (in an effort to protect the world from ID), then shame on you.

sorry. I misunderstood when he used the term "lighter" .

The discussion of Behes "Irreducible Complexity" is also a term Id expect a working paleontologit to unerstqnd. Behe's argument re: the flagella was easily dispatched by Ken Miller and a grad student from Brown. They gathered many examples of ciliated reticulae that ere used as motor r sening "drive unit" on microscopic organisms. the process of co-opting (a Lynn Margulis term ) can be seen in todays microorganisms to have coopted entire genomes (kinda like algae and fungi get together and create an entirely new Phylum-the Lichens).
The evidence from the fosil record and the views from genomics doesnt especially provide any ID evidence.

ID is a concept you WTRT with, then you cherry pick for evidence that supports your statement. A you said, the same evidence science uses to define evolution, also supports I D. Thats not true. While one cherry picked aspect may be "friendly" to ID terminology, the other surrounding arenas of science (fossils, geology, development, biochemistry--) DO NOT.

The irreducible complexity story only works if you dont look further down the evolutionary line to see the several aspects (the parts) of of that "irreducible complexity"

Behe got his head handed to him when he spoke of mammalian blood clotting being based on a
cascade" of enzymes and proteins 26 chemicals in a line. Ken Miller and colleague took this apart by showing that erlier species , (reptiles and birds and fish) hqd similqr but only prtilly developed cascades containing less numbers of these enzymes. I cn dig up a few bt Im not sure it would be of any interest unless you relly dig into the biochem.

The clotting enzymes used in Horshoe Crb (even though it blood is Copper,not iron based) are about the same as a Pwrch, whih ontains about 6 less than a bird---yattah yattah. It all follows a chain of growth (ll with the same damned enzymes)

Fascinating account of how, when ya really think about it, Blood clotting aint a really intelligent step.

Ya know, Overall I kinda doubt the veracity and intent of that guy. I was thinking about the books he had on the ID side. ALL of them were written recently an invoke high sounding arguments based on stuff of which Darwin was not even aware!!. Darwin didnt even know about Genes and genetics was contemporaneous with "The Origin" but wasnt a popular read. SO How could that guy even pose an argument that compares Darwins theory with Behes Irreducible complexity n Meyers stuff.??
All the books on the "light side" were written no more than 20 years ago, while Darwin's was over 150 years old. AT least, the museum didnt think out that exhibit too well. Any kid woulda pointed out the discrepencies of content

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean it's not fair to pit Darwin's idea against later ones? Isn't that like saying we can't critique the idea of an Earth centric universe with other ones arrived at after the invention of the telescope?

As far as Darwin's entire theory of Natural selection, yes it is kinda stupid to compare what Darwin wrote with very recent ID material.) Its like arguing Einstein AGAINST Newton because Newton didnt know about atomic power. Get it?? Your guy made a big deal about Mike Behe's arguments nd gave it a tone that seemed to be a refutation of Darwin. Had your guy read some of the later papers and even testimony, it would be seen that (AS I STATED ABOVE) Behe was easily refuted by the biochemical FACTS (of which Darwin was unaware cause they hadnt even been discovered for another 75 years)

As far as Darwin is concerned, the "modern ID arguments" have all been put down scientifically without disturbing the old man's theory at all. As days proceed, its amazing how his theory is upheld at all points.
ID will take an argument ,like "Irreducible complexity" and try to make a point that argues against Darwin, when it should really be against MAYR or GOULD.

Building on the shoulders of giants allows us to see farther. Arguing celestial navigation by GPS against Columbus is just plain sillyness.

If you miss the point then try to find someone on the IDers side who can play fair and see what they say.

As I said before, Darwin had two major mistakes in his theory (all based upon NOT knowing how genes work and NOT knowing what genes even are).
For one, his transmissible transmutations would , by his own admission become geometrically "Watered down" in succeeding generations.

Now we know that these" traits "are really PRESERVED in the genome even when they are turned off when overwritten by later mutations preserved by nat selection. How such transmutations were preserved was a great mystery to Darwin and its a neat pleasure to examine the"Origin..." from a 21st century forensic POV where we understand quite a bit more about how things work. Darwin wrote 6 editions of the "Origin" .Each edition was slightly different and more exploratory as he began to formulate later conclusions of his theory. Nowhere does ID come up except in ed 3 where he gives a side glance and a Darwinian smirk to the Rev Paley whose own form of evangelical based ID was a take-off on the Johnstonian phrase..."Life's too complicated to have risen by mindless evolution"

And, in case you still dont get my point, because of my above two posts are hanging out there and I stand by em, I seriously doubt your guys intentions as being objectively scientific. I havent looked him up but sometimes we find guys like this (educated to the hilt and more degrees than a thermometer) then they SUDDENLY see the light and become YECs. Cmon, I knew Steve Austen and his work as a proselytizing evangelical was fairly well known even when he was in grad school. He finished his Phd, covered his beliefs by engaging in methods reserch, and then, one day, came out of the Fundamentalist Closet when on the road to Tallahassee.
That was a bit of cynical bullshit Creationist phony DRAMA.There are many guys like that out there. Weve discussed a few (Shapiro, meyer, Ham, and that list of "scientists" who claim to have been redirected to embrace Creationist /ID "beliefs" by some new finding from science).

I find them to be engaged in disingenuous role playing . AND Im really amazed at how gullible people are.(Even on this web site).

Is there anything that links the universe as a whole? Some ethereal cosmic lattice that life might grow upon?

bacon.

I always like a good bacon, lattice and tomato sammich

https://www.netflix.com/title/80175827

Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You're crackin' me up.

Either you're as gullible as a farm boy newly arrivee in the big city, or you think everyone else here is.

IDiocy is pure religiously motivated deceit.

Well, if we're going to approach the subject by character assassination, it's kind of pointless.
And hey, you're kind of popular on this web site...

Hmm...

So by YOU calling ME names, youve moved the battle line away rom the IDers who you quoted and have made ME the disingenuous one. I like how you do that so deftly and never once do your hands leave your arms. Popularity has nothing to do with anything. Im talking to YOU about this paleontologist who uses what I think is "outta the closet" Creationist/ID thinking, and has attempted to "salt" his arguments with invalid comparisons and analogies.

Science is always a tool of its times. If Darwin hadnt revealed that his "watering down" of inheritable traits was based upon what information he had at the time, Goldschmidt and Haldane were able to put together the actual importance of what genes did . And then, it wasnt till Watson and Crick proposed the actual chemical mechanism as a crystal of a double helix, we would have had to wait even more years to slug out what makes genetic so important.

Sometimes science has gotta rap us on the head to kick away the ignorance we brought in to the lab that morning

Viktor Schauberger - Comprehend and Copy Nature (Documentary of 2008)
https://youtu.be/yXPrLGUGZsw

The Fibonacci Sequence
https://math.temple.edu/~reich/Fib/fibo.html

Water Memory
https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0

For ID supporters, they first need to produce evidence of their god. All else is nonsense.

I demand it's explained to me NOW!

Man is synthesis.. some things require incorporation.
Water Memory: https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0
After viewing ask the question knowing life began in the waters... Could there have been information that guided formation?

The genome is amazing. Sometimes it looks like artificial intelligence in its ability to store bits of information and then reorganize them later when it is needed to adjust to changes in the environment and other change.

The reorganization just really looks planned when you look at the huge diversity and beauty in plant and animal life, that is so interdependent at so many levels in each ecological niche and across niches.

What I find hard to account for is that there seems to be so much unnecessary diversity and beauty, especially in the plant kingdom. Animals do use appearance to choose partners but plants don't. They don't need to be beautiful to survive.

Life has so much interdependent information going on that I think that information could be compared quite closely to writing a great novel. We should be able to see organization of information into such complexity without intelligence happening today, but we don't. The only place novels come from are intelligent minds.

The guiding information is the existence of chemistry (protein) and the proper environment.