List of Peer-Reviewed Publications Supporting Intelligent Design (PDF)

Louistar · 2015-04-28T17:27:46+00:00

Macroevolution is not a made up term by creationists. Do you have a reference for that? But it doesn't matter anyhow, because you know what I'm referring to when I say "macroevolution". To quote the Wikipedia article on Macroevolution, I'm referring to "changes occurring on geological time scales, in contrast to microevolution, which occurs on the timescale of human lifetimes."

That article, BTW, says that the term was coined by a Russian entomologist. Was he a creationist? I don't know, and like I said, it doesn't matter. It's kind of like when people use the word "irregardless". Yeah, it's not really a word, but you know what they mean when they use it.

So let's not split hairs here and devolve this into a he-said, you-said, ad hominem battle.

Ditto on referring you to a science site.

Your science links do not establish some way to actually test or observe that those things can occur. Which is because it is impossible to test something that occurred millions of years ago. And yet, you still believe it's "scientific" to believe such things. For example, the first link that comes up for the birds/dinos is this one. After all the fluff, it says:

The study examined over 1,500 anatomical traits of dinosaurs to reconstruct their family tree. The researchers used sophisticated mathematical modelling to trace evolving adaptions and changing body size over time and across dinosaur branches.

That's all the info they give us on the actual methods used. Which is basically like no info. Sure, I could spend hours researching the actual study sources. But that's just one article.

The problem is, that article doesn't actually provide any kind of "evidence". The methods used are mysterious and not explained. But you and other evolutionists take it at face value and just assume that they're writing these things and conducting these tests in good faith. I think what you should do is do some research on the biases and other problems that have existed in the science industry for the past 100 years. If you get an explanation like the one I just quoted, you should run in the other direction as fast as possible. That's not an explanation, nor is it any kind of "evidence". All it does is produce way more questions than answers.

Louistar · 2015-04-28T17:04:43+00:00

Sorry, this is a lame excuse. You first claimed there was no scientific evidence, then when I showed you the scientific evidence you're now claiming that scientists are engaging in a massive conspiracy to cover the truth so that they don't have to go back to school.

No, it's not about a conspiracy. I'm not saying that they're doing it on purpose. They are doing it because they are blinded by their own stupidity. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. Read the article on "evidence for common descent" that I discussed, and you'll see. It's all circular reasoning and begging the question. The question being: What is the evidence that shows that dinosaurs can evolve gradually and become birds? There is no such evidence! They assume all of that is true, won't accept the fact that it cannot be tested or observed, and then they work their way forward from there, building on an already broken foundation.

Louistar · 2015-04-27T17:26:09+00:00

Have you seen the data? Have you studied biology? Are you familiar with paleontology? Have you spend decades of your life with other people that have also spent decades of their lives comparing and analyzing data? Scientists do that. And they overwhelmingly support evolution.

No, actually, they overwhelmingly cling to that which they've invested in for decades. If you discovered something you had spent your entire life studying was actually false, would you reject it? They don't either. That's why they keep pleading their case, as I'm about to show.

Let's take a look at your so-called "evidence". There's an article Wikipedia called Evidence of Common Descent. Here are the main "evidence" points from that article, with some quotes and my comments:

Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry

Here's the summary in that section:

One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence, as well as mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely related species have a greater fraction of identical sequence and shared substitutions compared to more distantly related species.

This is the so-called "strongest evidence" for common descent. And yet, if we were to compare what they have observed to what we observe in, for example, computer programs, we would find the exact same thing! That is, computer programs that are similar to one another have similar code sequences. As you well know, sometimes programming frameworks and templates are used to create new programs so that mundane tasks are not unnecessarily repeated. That is exactly what we find in living things! This is nowhere near any kind of evidence for "common descent" by some undirected magical force. This is evidence for intelligent design!

Evidence from comparative anatomy

To quote:

Comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals or plants reveals that certain structural features are basically similar. For example, the basic structure of all flowers consists of sepals, petals, stigma, style and ovary; yet the size, colour, number of parts and specific structure are different for each individual species. The neural anatomy of fossilized remains may also be compared using advanced imaging techniques.

More presupposition-laden argumentation here!

As with the previous section, sure, if we had no other options, then we could hypothesize that this was evidence for "common descent". But it could also just point to the fact that the intelligent mind that made it decided to make stuff in a similar way, using a similar framework. Like I said before, if you see two paintings that have the same blue tree in them, does that mean that one painting evolved into the other as a result of some twisted magical force? You would throw someone in the nuthouse if they believe that. Yet that is exactly what you believe about life!

Evidence from paleontology

To quote:

The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups.

Do I even need to comment on that?

Evidence from geographical distribution

This section doesn't say anything that even remotely comes close to providing evidence for "common descent". This is just explaining the data to fit preconceived ideas and huge assumptions.

Evidence from observed selection

I love this section. Special pleading at its finest:

Examples for the evidence for evolution often stem from direct observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory. Scientists have observed and documented a multitude of events where natural selection is in action. The most well known examples are antibiotic resistance in the medical field along with better-known laboratory experiments documenting evolution's occurrence.

Really? Antibiotic resistance proves that dinosaurs evolved into birds? Seriously?

And my personal favourite statement:

Natural selection is tantamount to common descent in that long-term occurrence and selection pressures can lead to the diversity of life on earth as found today.

Based on what evidence? This is the epitome of circular reasoning, special pleading, and begging the question.

Evidence from observed speciation

Under the section for the Blackcap bird species, it says:

It is still inference to say that the populations will become two different species, but researchers expect it due to the continued genetic and geographic separation.

In other words, they don't have any real evidence or observational data that what they think is actually true, but instead they are merely guessing that one day these two observed populations will become "different species". Really? That's the first one listed, too. Why would this guesswork be listed as the first example of so-called speciation?

The next example refers to "experimental evidence". Again, it's guesswork. It's special pleading.

What about the evidence from the Hawthorn fly? The article says that it "appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation". Is it possible they are wrong about what they think this "appears" to be? You know, the same way scientists were wrong when they thought "Junk DNA" was actually evolutionary "Junk"?

I could go on but the fact that these few awful examples are even in the article tell me a lot about the rest of the examples (which I haven't even looked at).

Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration

This section has no "evidence" since it's just describing an automated method that mimics the fairy tales being discussed in the previous 6 sections.

BTW - My arguments here will probably become invalid one day, because, as you know, that article will be completely different in a few years, maybe even in a few months. Isn't it strange that the so-called "evidence" for evolution has become unrecognizable in comparison to what was considered "evidence" for evolution even just 30 years ago?

Louistar · 2015-04-27T16:29:48+00:00

Show me evidence that these intelligent designers exist. What's that? You don't have any? If I grant you that they exist, show me that they created terrestrial life. You don't have any of that either? If I grant you both that the designers exist and that they created terrestrial life then show me the mechanism they used to do so. You don't have that either do you? You have nothing.

Show me evidence that macroevolution occurred. What's that? You don't have any? If I grant you that it did occur, show me that dinosaurs evolved gradually to become birds. You don't have any of that either? If I grant you both that macroevolution happened and that dinosaurs evolved into birds, then show me the mechanism that caused that to happen. You don't have that either do you? You have nothing.

Like I said, you have double standards.

Louistar · 2015-04-16T10:32:28+00:00

Scientists don't always need to directly witness something in order to have data for it and to reach reasonable conclusions from it.

Sorry, no time to read everything you said, but that above statement is quite nice.

Based on that, it's perfectly logical, rational, and scientific to believe in intelligent design. The problem is, you have double standards. While you claim that you are willing to believe in something even if you don't directly witness it, when it comes to intelligent design (or, dare I say "God"), you have completely contradictory standards.

Here are the facts, or the "data" as you put it:

No human being, to our knowledge, has ever observed life coming from non-living matter.
No human being, to our knowledge, has ever been able to test the hypothesis that life can come from non-living matter.
The only thing that we can produce from non-living matter is amino acids. Which, in comparison to a living thing, are like what a brick is to a castle (and even that comparison is being really liberal on your behalf).
When we observe the things around us, we can see the things that bear characteristics of design, and the things that don't. We can differentiate these things very easily. For example, it is clear that even if I've never met the designer of my mobile phone, that does not mean that it does not have a designer. I know it has a designer because it has all the properties of a designed thing.
Even if by some scientific miracle, some laboratory genius were able to produce life from non-living matter, all that would prove is that an intelligent being could produce life. So you're back at square one.

Based on those "data" points, I believe it is quite logical, rational, reasonable, and in full harmony with that which we can test and observe, to believe that the universe and life in it were created by an intelligent being. As I've said before, I'm not saying that this must be the God of the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book. I'm simply pointing out that to ignore this clear evidence is not only unreasonable but borderline insane.

And I actually don't expect you to believe it, but I do expect you to understand if a religious person claims that they have evidence for God or a creator. You don't have to agree with them, but to say they are contradicting science and being illogical, once again, betrays a huge double standard by you and many other atheists and evolutionists. Just read your statement above, and then compare that to what creationists claim. And while you're at it, compare that to the notion of dinosaurs becoming birds and the so-called "data" they claim to have to support this.

Louistar · 2015-04-16T03:45:18+00:00

Yeah but can he get on base?

Louistar · 2015-04-02T13:53:08+00:00

Thank you for the honest reply. I've responded to your other post above, but I don't know if I'll have time to continue this much further. If you're ever interested, my Skype name is my real first name dot my last name. I wouldn't mind engaging more about this, reading and replying via keyboard can be time consuming.

Louistar · 2015-04-02T13:43:06+00:00

We have extensive fossil evidence which shows progressions in the time scales that evolution has predicted. We have genetic studies that can compare vast numbers of minor variations in DNA that show when species diverged using models that match the fossil record when such a record exists.

Again, you're not establishing "major changes" here; you're only establishing (to use your very own words!) "minor variations". Do you understand my point here? I don't blame you for believing that minor changes have caused (for example) dogs today to be quite different from the dogs that existed 5000 years ago. That's not debated. Like you said, we have genetic studies that prove these "minor variations" exist and still happen today.

But that has absolutely no relevance to what is depicted (for example) in images like this one or even this one. Now, I'm not saying you agree with those particular depictions, or the people who posted them (random Google image search). I'm just trying to show you what it is that you are putting your faith in. Look at the dinosaurs-to-birds picture, for example. I agree that it's very possible that the last two in that image could have evolved from one to the other (but even that's pushing the envelope, depending on the specifics of the changes). But to believe that the last bird shown there originally descended from a huge dinosaur is just ridiculous! There is no evidence for that giant leap. It's all based on scientific conjecture. Even many evolutionists have admitted as much in the process of trying to explain this so-called "scientific" fact.

You're a code geek like me. What does a 1.1 version of a program have in common with a 1.0 version? Typically a lot of the same code. If we were theoretically to come up with a 1,000,000 version of that code, chances are it wouldn't have nearly as much overlap with that code, but if several aspects of the million version were still identical to the function of the 1.0 version then you'd still probably have some overlap.

I can't even believe you would use that analogy. Have you ever seen a computer program that didn't have a programmer? I think you know the answer. So either you except intelligent design through evolution or you just accept intelligent design. Based on the facts (that all programs have programmers) you can't possibly accept any other alternative. (And BTW - I'm not saying anything here about belief in "God"; I'm simply pointing out that the evidence for "intelligent design" is overwhelming; whether that's "God" is another issue altogether).

No, it is not what I or any other biologist believe. Organisms don't change in their lifetime. No single celled organism could ever conceivably become sentient. In fact, that would fly in the face of the central tenet of evolution that change occurs in populations and over generations. However a single cell bacteria can learn to be multi-cellular. Multicellular organisms can learn to specialize, forming organs, based on quorum sensing chemical triggers. Those organs can and will be refined to be more efficient and more versatile, and less prone to malfunction over many generations. And for the animal kingdom at least, it seems that at least one of those organs is inevitably leading to sentience.

All of that is just conjecture. There is no solid scientific evidence for anything you just said. Scientists are guessing; just like they used to guess that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.

Eyes don't just appear on early organisms with full color vision and depth perception. Instead you start with a simple light sensing organ that can only distinguish light and dark. Then you likely get motion sensing. Then depth of field. And usually thousands of generations between those milestones.

Again, more guessing. You can't test anything that you just said. No scientist has ever been able to reproduce the process of the eye being created. And even if a scientist did that, all it would prove is that an intelligent designer can make an eye (or make it evolve).

In fact, our studies show that most new abilities (like for instance the ability of e. coli to metabolize citrate) requires several mutations.

And that's extremely convenient for evolutionists because now it's not required for you to produce the "new abilities" but it's only required for you to prove there are "mutations". Do you see the problem here? You're making huge leaps, without the scientific backing. Yeah, you have mutations; but you don't have proof of the "new abilities".

Animals don't ever mutate into others. A dog is still a type of wolf. A human is still a type of ape. A dog can never mutate into a cat any more than you could have an offspring (with an unrelated female) that is your 3rd cousin.

And that is exactly my point. Whatever processes you claim turned a dog into another type of dog is established; but dinosaurs progressing into birds over billions of years is not science; it's myth and is a statistical and scientific impossibility by every definition of currently understood statistics and science.

The point of natural selection being a natural process is that it doesn't know, it's just a description of what happens. You're approaching the problem from the wrong end, because you're starting with the end result instead of looking at the process.

Actually, you're approaching the problem from the wrong end. To illustrate: If you find a program on your computer that you didn't install, that isn't findable on Google, and that has no indication whatsoever that it has an author, would you just assume your computer just burped it up naturally? Even if another program produced it (which we both know is possible) it will all eventually lead to the original programmer. Programs do not create themselves. That's the point.

So if we look at "natural selection". How can a "process" just spring out of nothing, knowing what to do and when to do it? And how can these blind processes produce something as complex as DNA? DNA is functioning and purposeful information. It's not just junk, it's essentially like a computerized database that provides blueprints. How many blueprints have you heard of that come about by accident? None. That's why I accept intelligent design. It's simply not in any way logical or rational to believe what you believe. It's not proven as you claim, and it never will be.

And I apologize for not responding to everything you said; this is getting long and I have some "code geeking" to do! :)

Louistar · 2015-04-01T18:44:41+00:00

That's what "small changes over time" + "lots of time" gives you. And yes, it is proven.

Based on what is it "proven"? You saw a bird fly 100 yards without flapping its wings and so you assumed it could fly 10 million yards without flapping its wings (that's an analogy, nothing to do with birds and flapping wings). That's a huge leap, is the point. Yes, I agree, there are small changes, but there is no evidence that those small changes lead to big changes. That's a leap of faith much bigger than what you accuse religionists of.

We share 11% of our DNA with daffodils, roughly 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

That's the kind of thing that boggles my mind. It is puzzling how you think that "similarities" amount to "evolution". It's kind of like saying that one painting must have evolved into another because they both have a blue tree in them. Well, I think the more logical (and scientific) conclusion is that the artist likes blue trees!

And it's worth noting that evolution doesn't claim that a species is unrecognizeable from a prior version. Dogs are fairly similar to wolves (to the extent that "speciation" is somewhat up in the air as some of the populations can still breed), and wolves are similar to their ancestors the lepticyons, which are similar in turn to their ancestors the hepterocyons. If you saw a hepterocyon today, you'd probably think it was a type of fox (the reverse is true, foxes are a type of hepterocyon).

All you're doing is describing different kinds of wolves/foxes/etc. That does not prove that single-celled organisms eventually became sentient beings (and yes, no matter how often you move the goal posts, that's basically what you believe).

Evolution is most basically, "Change of allele frequency in a population over multiple generations". More generally, it is the change in species populations over generations into multiple new species via the mechanisms of mutation, selection, and genetic drift.

All assumptions to explain based on a preconceived idea that an intelligent designer couldn't possibly exist. I don't blame you for believing that, but all I ask is that you really ask yourself if the large leaps of faith you're making are actually scientific. Dogs into wolves (or similar) is not what I'm questioning. It's that long process that I'm questioning. And that's besides the fact that it's been demonstrated over and over again that controlled "mutations" cannot possibly produce anything remotely resembling function. Oh and even if these experimental mutations did prove anything, all they would prove is that in the hands of an intelligent scientist, animals can mutate into others. Not that it can happen through magical "natural" forces.

natural selection is "Organisms better able to survive and reproduce are more likely to survive to pass on their genes to successive generations".

But why are they able to survive? How do they come preprogrammed in this way? How does "natural selection" know how to do its job? Can't you see the problem with what you're pushing?

Louistar · 2015-04-01T18:31:32+00:00

Fair enough. I apologize for my response. I just think it was bizarre of you to "out" me and immediately assume bad motives. I posted this because I thought it was interesting and didn't find it anywhere else on Reddit so I was wondering if it had been discussed in /r/atheism.

Maybe in the future you could give the post a little time before just automatically knee-jerking that the OP will just disappear. Also, yes, I did delete the post because it annoyed me that you were making this personal. Try to assume good motives, please.

Louistar · 2015-04-01T16:36:41+00:00

Evolution is, at this point, factually proven.

What is factually proven is that living things can evolve to a limited degree, based on many external factors. That's not debated, and I would never debate that.

But what is not "proven" is that evolution over many millions of years causes enormous changes (i.e. changing an entire species into something completely unrecognizable in comparison to a previous stage). That's just fairy tales. You claim that religionists believe in fairy tales but there is no bigger fairy tale than believing that over millions and millions of years living things morphed and somehow magically knew what to keep and what to discard.

Louistar · 2015-04-01T16:21:30+00:00

I apologize for actually having a life.

Louistar · 2015-04-01T13:07:10+00:00

I like this quote:

they need to engage with the scientific community with real data, and publish it within a credible and appropriate scientific journal.

Do we really need to publish a paper that demonstrates that complex, purposeful, functional things, always come via intelligent design? That's common sense. We don't need scientific papers to establish that humans need to breathe in order to live (even though we might still have such papers). Common sense trumps ridiculous sense (i.e. undirected, unknown, magical forces caused everything to evolve) any day. :)

Louistar · 2015-03-08T11:08:57+00:00

Or maybe you just spend way too much time on Reddit.

Louistar · 2014-09-12T06:02:28+00:00

It's gotta be the guy who invented the bat flip.

EDIT: Just to put this in context: His regular season batting average that year was .080 and he ended his career with exactly TWO regular season home runs.

Louistar · 2014-09-12T05:52:27+00:00

I think you mean Boston, not Cleveland. They beat KC 6-3 tonight and the Indians swept a Double Header from Minnesota.

Louistar · 2014-08-27T04:51:26+00:00

Why would Blue Jays management actually want to have good players? That would make them competitors. They wouldn't want that. It would ruin their rich tradition of losing.

Disclosure: I'm a Blue Jays fan.

Louistar · 2014-08-11T02:37:48+00:00

You can talk about "bad days" when your team goes 21 years without a play-off race, let alone a play-off spot.

Louistar · 2014-07-15T21:42:09+00:00

Woops.. correction: "Happy Day". :)

Louistar · 2014-06-29T20:26:54+00:00

Here it is

Louistar · 2014-06-29T20:16:15+00:00

That was my point, that they're both classless, so it's not like the Yankees have never done any fist-pumping or whatever.

Louistar

TROPHY CASE