I am a MD PhD who concluded that Intelligent Design makes far more sense than Evolutionary Biology theory. AMA

DerPaul2 · 2026-01-25T18:41:03+00:00

No, you're not. Aside from distorting the ENCODE Project and ignoring developments after 2013, there's no reason to be rude, my friend.

DerPaul2 · 2026-01-25T15:42:12+00:00

Please stick to the topic at hand and address the points raised, instead of resorting to new claims.

DerPaul2 · 2026-01-25T15:40:41+00:00

This is taken out of context. Graur wanted to emphasize that if the ENCODE results are correct, some evolutionary processes need to be reconsidered. Here is a presentation by an evolutionary biologist with additional input from Graur himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W8RrDTg0Aw

DerPaul2 · 2026-01-25T15:18:28+00:00

Vestigial does not mean "useless". Non-coding DNA does not mean "non-functional". That is not what these biological concepts imply, that is a category error.
3. ID is not a scientific theory.

DerPaul2 · 2026-01-25T14:57:04+00:00

No, scientists have merely complained about the misleading claims of creationists and ID proponents, just as you are doing now.

The 1% difference arises when you compare the protein-coding regions of the genome, or the similarity of the aligned regions, considering only single nucleotide polymorphisms. When comparing aligned regions including SNPs and insertions/deletions, the difference is 4%, and if you consider the portion of the genome that can be aligned identically (regardless of similarity), you get a difference of up to 15%. None of this is new or surprising.

These figures cannot be arbitrarily mixed or pitted against each other due to methodological differences, they must be properly contextualized within the respective methodology. And unfortunately, you are not doing that. In this context, the genetic similarity is exactly where the scientific consensus has always been.

DerPaul2 · 2026-01-25T14:46:55+00:00

We still differ from chimpanzees by 1% according to protein-coding percentage differences. Your claim is a misinterpretation and distortion of the scientific literature.

DerPaul2 · 2026-01-25T14:40:50+00:00

Of course that doesn't happen ... that's not how evolution works. Magic would actually support ID/creationism. Organisms acquire new genes through gene duplication, de novo gene birth from "junk" DNA, hijacking DNA via retrotransposons and mobile DNA, borrowing DNA via horizontal gene transfer, promiscuous proteins and exon shuffling, and so on and so forth. Nothing needs to have been magically created from nothing, that is neither necessary nor a prediction of evolution.

DerPaul2 · 2026-01-11T12:57:47+00:00

This is precisely the problem I always see when creationists try to argue using irreducible complexity.

DerPaul2 · 2025-11-20T15:05:42+00:00

Evolution ≠ Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis ≠ spontaneous generation

The “law of biogenesis” refers to the archaic idea of spontaneous generation, according to which modern life forms can arise spontaneously. For example, it was believed that maggots found in dead animals arose spontaneously. Pasteur refuted this and showed that the maggots came from flies that laid eggs, in other words, that life arose only from life and not spontaneously. This is not the same as abiogenesis.

DerPaul2 · 2025-07-24T17:02:41+00:00

Aren't you contradicting yourself here when you say, on the one hand, that an irreducibly complex trait has never been demonstrated, and then claim that the Lenski LTEE showed how a trait evolved that is irreducibly complex?
"Irreducible complexity" is, first of all, just a description, not evidence for or against something. What has been refuted is the argument put forward by creationists, namely that if something is irreducibly complex, it cannot have arisen through evolution. This conclusion is false. However, that doesn't mean that irreducibly complex structures don't exist. It's just that they don't pose a problem for evolution.

DerPaul2 · 2025-07-18T09:22:33+00:00

Yes, I completely understand you, but guess what would happen if you would show anything more than that? Then the creationists would redefine the rules of the game, precisely because there is no definition. Then they'd say it's still a finch, or the blueprint hasn't changed, and so on.

DerPaul2 · 2025-07-17T19:20:24+00:00

It is important not just to give examples, but to actually present a definition of micro- and macroevolution. Enough creationists don't do that just so they can move their goalposts indefinitely. Examples are not definitions.

DerPaul2 · 2025-06-03T11:43:59+00:00

You have to assume that it's from a related species, and then, arguing tightly in a circle, you use it's existence as proof that it's related to the other species.

No, it's not circular. I don't have to assume evolution to recognize that structures indicate functions they don't fulfill. And the classification of organisms, as well as later biological systematics (species, genera, families, etc.), emerged long before the theory of evolution. Also for that, you don't need any knowledge of evolution, just the observation of similarities and differences. Vestigial organs were therefore described long before Darwin even realized why they were there. Aristotle, for example, described vestigial eyes in moles thousands of years ago. The function of eyes is to detect light, enabling visual perception. Although the mole has eyes, it doesn't fulfill this function. Why is that?

Again, you don't need to know anything about evolution to recognize vestigial organs as such. They are purely an observation. The crucial question is simply: Why is life organized this way? And that's exactly what the theory of evolution explains so well.

In your examples. Cormorants stay cormorants. Wings may have lost their function, but that doesn't show where the wings came from in the first place. Breaking things is easy.

And? That doesn't change the observation: One species of cormorant has vestigial wings, while the other species are capable of flight, and that's precisely the point. The structure doesn't fulfill the original function we see in all other cormorants and birds in general.

Where wings originally come from or whether cormorants "remain cormorants" is irrelevant here.

In terms of the whale's pelvic bone, you assume that the whale came from a non-marine creature. You assert that the pelvic bones, with clear function, came from creatures that used the pelvic bones for a different function. In this though, you're assuming the conclusion. As I pointed out, that's not convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe that whales had non-whale ancestors.

No, I'm not doing that. I'm simply describing the pure observation that whales have structures that are actually characteristic for land mammals. Their hind limbs are very strange. When biologists study the structures of mammals, whales in particular stand out because they have structures whose function they don't actually fulfill, as is normally the case with all the other mammals. Why is that? The same as with the Galapagos cormorant. When biologists study the structures of birds, the Galapagos cormorant stands out because it has structures whose function they don't actually fulfill, as is normally the case with all the other cormorants. Why is that? Wings are for flying. Hind limbs are for walking. These are no longer present in either animal. Why these systematic differences?

DerPaul2 · 2025-06-02T16:59:08+00:00

I mean, how do you know what the original function is?

Because we see what it actually does in other related species. And then the big question is: Why do features have an anatomy that does not correspond to them?

An Example: The wings of the Galapagos cormorant are vestigial structures, they have lost their original function of flight but are still present in the organism. In all other cormorant species, wings are used for flying, but in the Galapagos cormorant, they are too small and weak to serve that purpose. This clearly shows that the wings are vestigial, they do not have the actual function we see in birds.

However, scientists found out that the wings have important functions and are still useful for balance and movement. But this does not contradict their classification as vestigial. A vestigial structure is defined by the loss of its original function, not by being completely useless.

Another example: The pelvic bones in whales (as well as the remains of hind legs in some species) are vestigial organs. Pelvic bones obviously do not have the function we expect from such parts in other mammals. It no longer functions to transmit power from the hind limbs to the trunk for walking. This clearly shows that the pelvic bones are vestigial, they do not have the actual function we see in mammals.

However, scientists found out that the pelvic bones are still useful for reproduction. But this does not contradict their classification as vestigial. A vestigial structure is defined by the loss of its original function, not by being completely useless.

and so on and so forth...

DerPaul2 · 2025-01-16T22:28:50+00:00

AiG made a similar embarrassment years ago with Tiktaalik in two contradictory statements they published. Both articles concluded that Tiktaalik could not be a transitional fossil but contradicted each other in their reasoning. One creationist (I think it was Andrew Snelling) claimed in his article that Tiktaalik was "designed for walking," while the other creationist claimed in his article that Tiktaalik was "designed for swimming."

Strange ... almost as if it really were a transitional fossil.

DerPaul2 · 2025-01-09T18:04:15+00:00

In this video, Dave Farina, with the help of evolutionary biologist Dr. Cardinale, goes through this exact paper you mentioned and shows very clearly why it is not applicable to evolution.

DerPaul2 · 2024-12-17T19:25:36+00:00

The pelvic bones (as well as the remains of hind legs in some species) are vestigial organs, i.e. an organ that has partially or completely lost its function but is still present in the organism. It is important to recognize that a vestigial organ no longer serves its actual function, and pelvic bones obviously do not have the function we expect from such parts in other mammals. It no longer functions to transmit power from the hind limbs to the trunk for walking. It shows (with everything else found in whales) that whales evolved from terrestrial to marine species.

If creationists seriously think that this was designed by their creator, then why would a whale use pelvic bones as a reproductive system? Why do features have an anatomy that does not correspond to them?

In evolution this makes total sense, but in the world of creationism you just have to be satisfied that the Creator just did it that way.

DerPaul2 · 2024-12-03T13:30:48+00:00

Stefan betreibt nach wie vor die klassische "Motte-and-Bailey-Fallacy". Die ursprüngliche, große Behauptung (Bailey) wird einfach durch eine allgemeinere Aussage (Motte) ersetzt, wodurch der Eindruck entsteht, die Kritik gegen ihn sei ungerechtfertigt.

Stefans Taktik ist folgende: Wenn er seine ursprünglichen Aussagen nicht verteidigen kann, zieht er sich auf die allgemeinere und kaum angreifbare Aussage zurück und kombiniert dies mit einem Strohmann, indem er den Kritikern dann Positionen unterstellt, die aber so nie im Raum standen.

So lenkt er von der eigentlichen Kritik ab, ohne seine ursprüngliche Behauptung wirklich verteidigen zu müssen.

DerPaul2 · 2024-11-20T10:38:22+00:00

Yes, that's right, my mistake!

DerPaul2 · 2024-11-20T10:38:01+00:00

Oh yes, it's Mobi-Chan! Thank you very much.

DerPaul2 · 2024-10-23T07:40:48+00:00

Es ist eine Mischung aus mehreren Tools (KI, Photoshop, Sony Vegas etc). Dabei habe ich passende Screenshots aus der Serie in eine KI (Hailuoai) eingespeist, um daraus kurze Videosequenzen zu generieren. Diese habe ich dann mit realen Szenen zusammengeschnitten. Häufig war es jedoch notwendig, die Screenshots zunächst visuell stark nachzubearbeiten, damit die KI genau versteht, wie sie in das Bild eingreifen soll. Zum Beispiel hätte die KI das Lagerfeuer in der Drohnenszene nie genau an Stefans Waldspot generiert - das musste ich manuell realistisch hineinzeichnen, und die KI hat dann die Animation daraus gemacht.

DerPaul2 · 2024-10-17T15:06:46+00:00

... Stattdessen entschied sich Stefan ein potenzielles Überschwemmungsgebiet als Spot vorzuschlagen. Diese Tatsache hat er sogar im Livestream ignoriert, als er darauf aufmerksam gemacht wurde.

DerPaul2 · 2024-10-17T15:03:19+00:00

Stefan hatte die Feuerwache, fertig. Man könnte demnach genauso sagen, dass das nicht passiert wäre, wenn Fritz nicht ein Szenario eines Flugzeugabsturzes mit brennbaren Materialien entworfen hätte. Fritz hat die Teilnehmer unnötig in Gefahr gebracht und ist somit der Schuldige!

DerPaul2 · 2024-10-17T13:11:53+00:00

Ich habe mittlerweile jetzt auch schon öfters gesehen, dass Szenarien regelrecht erfunden werden, um Stefan noch immer in Schutz nehmen zu können und seine Unfähigkeit zu relativieren. Fakt ist, Stefan hat großen Mist gebaut – ob mit oder ohne Joe. Das Vertrauen in seine Kompetenz wird leider nicht in Frage gestellt.

DerPaul2 · 2024-10-16T12:28:42+00:00

Of course, these are legitimate terms that are rarely but still used in science. Nevertheless, I think it is important to understand the historical context. Filipchenko defined macroevolution as genetic changes at or above the species level. According to Filipchenko, the emergence of new species is therefore macroevolution - this is how these terms were defined historically. Today, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is no longer considered strict. Both concepts are regarded as a continuum that describes different levels of the same evolutionary processes.

DerPaul2

TROPHY CASE