Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary Celebration

[csadler]

Ahhhh the Dishonesty Institute. IDiots at work.

[ClamCrunchy]

@csadler LOL

[uflinks]

What's Scott Minnich saying I can't hear. His voice is almost inaudible.

[pontecanis]

The Disco Intstitute (do the hustle)...hasn't discovered anything. The jerks who are involved, a long list of quacks and former scientists and some lawyers, have been successfully debunked at every turn, and have lost every court case they've been involved in.

[vohshkab]

Google and Youtube the ultimate democracy and vessel for free thought and transparency unregulated, uncensored and uninhibited. You want the truth Google and Youtube any of these nuts and you will get the answer as to why this monstrous group is villified. Note how they quote only themselves and praise only each others academic credentials - pseudo intellectual and scientific masturbation exposed for what it is.

[vohshkab]

"Discovery Institute" a truly repugnant, disingenuous (word was invented for this organisation), cynical, dishonest group of charlatans who serve no conceivable purpose other than push the political agenda of their shady benefactors. If there ever was a more dark, conspiritorial and dangerous group it is this unpleasant manifestation of superstitious nuts. Third rate academics and scientists prostituting their inferior credentials for mammon.

[Jesrael1986M]

@vohshkab Are you for real? Or are you a parodying ID critics? It's hard to say.

[vohshkab]

@Jesrael1986M Of course it is a parody how could anyone criticise these eminent and world renowned group of distinguished thinkers. Are you a parody of an ID supporter or are you for real ... just saying its hard to tell because you use words with more than a single syllable (which is the giveaway)

[csadler]

Icons of Evolution = Mountains of Bullshit.

[CamW30]

Why is Jonathan Wells so vilified by Darwinists? (What is a Darwinist? Do you mean evolutionary scientist?)

Anyway, the reason he is vilified is because he is wrong. Google: "Icons of Evolution" + criticism and read why he is wrong.

People aren't vilified when they can prove what they say; the are vilified when they have to use deception and subterfuge to con people into believing things that are demonstrably inaccurate.

[blazereef]

what about peppered moths? they evolved, get over it. darwins finches showed evolution. the fruit flys is a gene duplication

[robertmike57]

@blazereef These scumbags are a never ending fountain of bullshit. 

[blazereef]

miller urey experiment doesn't apply to evolution, evolution is change in allelic frequency, abiogenesis is life from non-life, they are not the same and you people know this, you are simply scumbags lying for jesus. darwins tree of life was an illustration, no one, even darwin though that it was factual. homology is a fact. the embyos have not been used as evidence for many years, in fact, there is a new field of science called evodevo. archaeoptyrx IS a transitional fossil, period.

[benthemiester]

Great work DI. Every few decades people need to stand up to monolithic outdated theories. Bravo. You can tell how much its making a difference in this field by how much hate mail it gets from the indoctrinated members of the Church of Darwinism.

[ScootleRoyale]

Let me guess ... by Macro you mean speciation? Speciation is still micro. Even creationists accept that the 13 different species of galapago finches all share a common finch ancestor. Macro is from one family to another or one order, class, phyla, kingdom to another. Macro is the creation of entirely new organs, mechanisms and information. The mechanism of mutation/selection has not been demonstrated to do anything like that.

[wristawareness]

HA!!

[9pt9]

Evolution = Fake & gay

[ScootleRoyale]

Abiogenesis is seperate from evolution as defined as universal common ancestry but it is not seperate from the specifically darwinian 'blind watchmaker' mechanism for evolution. Which is what ID challenges. The whole evolution debate is neither science nor religion, but a silly game of semantic fallacies.

[PrometheusWithLight]

Oh, it's "legendary" alright.

I love how they portrayed evolutionary biologists as "fuming over being trumped by an ID textbook," when the book has actually become something of a joke.

[steve0281]

I'm a big fan of IOE but we see the same Discovery Institute's usual suspects enodorsing each other's works. I would like to see a wider range of scholars coing forward.

[JustGreatThanks]

When you use how despised your book is by the mainstream scientific community as a bragging point, maybe it's time to rethink things.

[signatureinthecell]

@JustGreatThanks

The fact that the book is so despised by Darwinists is a clear indicator the "high genius" (an I.Q. reputed to be 180+) is doing it right.

Wells, Meyer, Behe, etc. are hated by Darwinists with the same anti-scientific vigor that geocentricists hated Galileo.

[1aaronaaron1]

@signatureinthecell Just like you all hate Richard Dawkins. The fact that you hate him I suppose is a clear indication of his high genius. Either concede that Dawkins is doing it right or admit your ridiculous double standard.

[steve0281]

@1aaronaaron1 Dawkins is a second rate (if that) thinker, if that term can even be applied to him. He is a good zoologist, but an extremely poor philosopher, which means he has trouble thinking critically. No hate for Dawkins here. Just a cold evaluation of his talents. Oh yes! He does write well. Too bad he is incoherent.

[ScootleRoyale]

@1aaronaaron1 Noone hates Dawkins. Tbh I feel sorry for him. He's clearly delusional if he thinks his silly computer programs are in any way good models of darwinian evolution.

The interesting thing about the response to Icons of Evolution is that some darwinists admit that the textbooks and mainstream documentaries that use these icons as examples of evolution are indeed incorrect but make out that its no big deal, while others rigorously defend the icons. The two groups debunk eachother.

[chadmacspeaks]

@ScootleRoyale

As I said in my previous post, evolution has three fundamental components: replication, mutation, selection. All three of these steps are very easy to implement in a computer program using genetic algorithms; as is done in the simulations of Dawkins and others. If they model the components of evolution, how can they not be good models of evolution?

[ScootleRoyale]

@chadmacspeaks No Avida and WEASEL are not darwinian... they are goal directed... the end goal needs to be programmed in and compared at each stage to what is randomly generated, otherwise you just get gibberish... Even Dawkins admits his weasel program is 'a bit of a cheat' because he had to program in the end goal. But I would argue that thats an understatement. The point is, a purely darwinian simulation cannot account for new information. Which is the main argument of ID.

[chadmacspeaks]

@ScootleRoyale

Yes, they are goal directed. But so is Darwinian evolution. The goal of evolution is to survive and reproduce within the constraints of one's environment. The nature of the environment (ie: food supply, shelter, predators) determines the selection process and hence dictates the direction of the organism's evolution. The use of objective functions based on predetermined goals within genetic algorithms is meant to simulate this environmental selection process.

[qdragon1337]

maybe i need to read this book, for the lulz

[CamW30]

No evidence, just unsubstantiated statements. After 10 years; still business as usual in the creationist camp. C'mon guys, do the science.

[EssentialPedagogy]

Oh look, things that SCIENCE has debunked as disproving evolution being bought up again by the DI. WHAT A SHOCK!

I even noticed confusing evolution and abiogenesis. How many times does this one need to be explained before the DI will get it?

[pestmanpat]

@EssentialPedagogy abiogeneis is chemical evolution.If they are not related then why is it that scientists can not agree on what constitutes life.If the line between the two is fuzzy and some place it further back then doesn't that imply a continuous process?

[EssentialPedagogy]

@pestmanpat

No it is not. There is evolution and that is it. Stars don't evolve, the universe doesn't evolve, etc. This is a LIE put forth by creationists to confuse the issue.

[pestmanpat]

@EssentialPedagogy Stars dont evolve the universe doesn't evolve? Have you not even heard of cosmic evolution and chemical evolution.These are secular terms.

Evolution is simply gradual change over time. Even those who support intelligent design recognize that things change to a point.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@pestmanpat

This is about The Theory of Evolution. None of the rest is covered by the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution ONLY covers how life changes. It does not cover chemical evolution, stellar evolution, etc. The liars at the DI, Kent Hovind, etc claim that it does, but as stated, that's a LIE.

[pestmanpat]

@EssentialPedagogy Your specifically referring to biological evolution.Yet earlier you claimed that stars dont evolve and now you are mentioning stellar evolution.So you now admit that they do evolve right ?

You didnt answer my question regarding the line between chemical and biological evolution.Does the fact that scientists can not decide where to draw that line suggest a continued process?If not why not ?

[EssentialPedagogy]

@pestmanpat

Because this is about The Theory of Evolution. It's a usual creationist tactic to confuse the issue by pretending that everything is about The Theory of Evolution, as if it's a Theory of Everything.

Abiogenesis is about how life came about. Evolution is about how life changes. It's that simple.

[pestmanpat]

@EssentialPedagogy Unless your claiming abiogenesis just poofed life into existence you must recognize the term is describing chemical evolution.Living cells are said to have arose gradually from nonliving matter through a sequence of chemical reactions over vast periods of time.Non living protobionts were said to possess RNA and a precurser to life.RNA then is said to have evolved into DNA and biological life.I have just described a continued process.Its that simple.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@pestmanpat

Abiogenesis is not part of The Theory of Evolution no matter what you call it.

[chadmacspeaks]

@pestmanpat

The process of biological Darwinian evolution requires a self-replicating molecule. Then mutations/errors in the copying process result in random variation. Then any random variations that result in features that improve the odds of survival are selected for. Rinse and repeat.

Stellar and chemical evolution do not involve a self-replicating entity; they are simply chemical processes operating over time. Therefore they are not part of Darwinian evolution.

[pestmanpat]

@chadmacspeaks re: Chemical evolution does not involve a self-replicating entity;

It is alleged that In the final stage of chemical evolution, Protobionts developed the ability to reproduce and pass genetic information from one generation to the next yet protobionts are not considered to be living entity's.

[chadmacspeaks]

@pestmanpat

Sorry for my error, I didn't know that the early protobionts weren't technically considered to be living (guess I should have figured from the name). That being said, I wouldn't expect every feature of living organisms to appear at the exact same moment. What this says to me is that simple replication and adaptation came about before some other features, which seems entirely plausible. So OK, the final stage of chemical evolution involved replication - works for me.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy I make a point to be suspicious whenever I hear the phrase "Debunked by science" - It's usually a mantra used by people defending a failing idea. It's the same tactic the man-made global warming alarmists use.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

No, it's usually a mantra of those with science on their side.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy Please explain how the 'blind watchmaker' notion is any more scientific, and any less faith based than intelligent design.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

Because Intelligent Design has zero evidence to support it.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy Aside from BS computer models that don't actually simulate darwinian evolution - Dawkins' WEASEL program, Avida etc. - neither does the 'Blind Watchmaker' idea. Lots of so-called scientific theories have zero empirical evidence - the giant impact theory for the formation of the moon (and many other mysteries in the solar system), dark matter/energy etc. - the only reason these are considered science while ID isn't is because they are friendly to materialism.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

No, because they have evidence. Just because you don't understand the evidence does not mean that it isn't evidence. Nice try.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy No they dont have evidence... not empricial evidence. Dark matter and energy cannot be observed or detected ... we infer that they exist due to the way the universe is expanding etc. So there is a case for believing in dark energy/matter, but it is purely inferential. With ID its basically the same logic... we can't observe or detect a designer... but we can infer a designer exists. So why is one science but the other isn't? Answer: ID contradicts materialism, no other reason.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

Dark matter and Dark energy are observed through their effects, so nice try.

The reason one is science and the other is not is that one invokes scientific explanations and the other invokes magic.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy So a designer can't be observed through its effects? Personally 'Dark Energy' sounds kind of like magic if you ask me. I mean how do you define 'Magic'?

Obviously from your blunt dismissive responses and arrogant, condescending tone, I can see this is a futile exercise. Typical. Sad really, your attitude turns what was once a revolutionary scientific theory into a dogma. You've become the very thing you accuse religious people of being.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

Your personal incredulity is not evidence against it.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy It s not an argument of personal incredulity, its a statement about the collective ignorance, and an inference to the only plausible explanation of complexity. Honestly, I feel like I'm talking to some bot here or something.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

Ignorance? The only ignorance is coming from the ID side which has their arguments shot down time and time again and just keeps refusing to learn.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy What I mean is the argument is not "I can't imagine how it could have evolved, therefore it didn't evole", the argument is "Noone knows how this evolved, and noone has demonstrated that the darwinian process can produce any thing like this, therefore the darwinian explanation is not a very good one".

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

It's demonstrated through the science. It's demonstrated through watching evolution in action.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy Again with the very broad brush mantra of 'Science'. Watching evolution in action? You mean in the fossils? - Observations of common ancestry does not equal proof of Darwinian evolution. There's a difference between observations of macro change and the cause of those changes. You just assume (Key word there - ASSUME) that the mechanism is natural selection. When the mechanism has never been demonstrated to produce such large scale change.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

Micro and macro evolution have been observed many times and natural selection is one of the driving forces.

[allan3141]

@EssentialPedagogy the issue is not if natural selection exists as a phenomenon, no one is denying that; it does. In fact; there are even different types of Natural Selection. The issue is what Non-random Natural Selection acting on random mutations could reasonably be expected to achieve given time; surely it is not “anything”? And also what observation and experimentation has actually shown it capable of achieving. These are reasonable scientific questions, not Christian or Buddhist questions!

[allan3141]

@ScootleRoyale here, here. This is such a sensible, reasonable, scientific, historically correct point in terms of the history of biological thought, and otherwise factually correct; why oh why, is it not grasped by the likes of EssentialPedagogy etc? It really is not a difficult distinction!

[allan3141]

@EssentialPedagogy no they have not. And the sooner you realise this the better, for you will then understand why the issue is not going to go away, just because you wish it to. Just declaring, "the arguments [are] shot down time and time again" is not going to cut it here. What arguments? Are you refering to arguments like those pertaining the bacterial flagella? If so; how, in the name of reason, have they been shot down?

[allan3141]

@EssentialPedagogy your personal credulity is not evidence for it. "It" here referring to the efficacy of the proposed mechanism to do that which it claims to have done, and be capable of doing. There are reasons, both conceptual and mathematical; arguments; experimental results, and findings, opposing the proposed mechanism having anything like the necessary efficacy. This you call "incredulity;" it is your credulity and total lack of scepticism I find flabbergasting.

[allan3141]

@ScootleRoyale once again; here, here. Where has my old friend Science gone? He is being killed in the hands of these people. But it will not last; neo-Darwinism is in its dead throes. Generations to come, doing real science, will look back and ask "how on earth did they believe such things?" Darwinists should not worry; Darwinism and neo-Darwinism will continue to be taught for many centuries to come, as an abject lesson of how the 'scientific' establishment can lose its way.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy All ID does is try to find a boundary limit to the Darwinian process... A boundary even Darwin himself acknowledged would falsify his theory. Nowadays we've gone beyond Darwin. We're supposed to just assume there is no limit, that anything no matter how complex has a Darwinian explanation - that's not science, that's faith.

[EssentialPedagogy]

@ScootleRoyale

No, ID is creationism dressed up to try and look scientific.

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy "Judge Jones said it, I believe it, end of discussion"

[allan3141]

@EssentialPedagogy No it is not. Also, why the small 'c'? Why do you not see, are not sensitive to, Philosophical Materialism being, as you put it, "dressed up to try and look scientific"?

[ScootleRoyale]

@EssentialPedagogy As for the big rock theories...

Moon? - Big rock

Mercury's density? - Big rock

Saturn's rings? - Big rock

Uranus' tilt? - Big rock

There is a tendency among scientists to just invoke a cosmic collision to explain mysteries.... in almost none of these cases is there any evidence for these collisions. The theories don't make any predictions and are unfalsifiable. So again ... Why are they considered scienctific theories? Answer: they are friendly to materialism.

[TheLittleDonkey]

good luck with that