The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

oscarBravo

J C, is there a reason why you're refusing to continue our discussion? You were claiming that it's impossible for a random change to produce an increase in information quality, but you haven't backed up that rather bizarre claim.

Also, what is the SI unit for CFSI?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

None of the 'Founding Fathers' of Modern Science were Astrologers, as far as I know ... but they were practically all Creationists.

Cept for folks like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

Tycho's duties included preparing astrological charts and predictions for his patrons on events such as births, weather forecasting, and astrological interpretations of significant astronomical events, such as the supernova of 1572 (sometimes called Tycho's supernova) and the Great Comet of 1577.[43]
....

Tycho considered astrology to be a subject of great importance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

His multiple interests included the study of astrology, which at the time was a discipline tied to the studies of mathematics and astronomy.[27]

Not to mention how Issac Newton was also into alchemy.

kiffer

King Mob wrote: »

Cept for folks like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei



Not to mention how Issac Newton was also into alchemy.

How dare your display a knowledge of the past!
And I am deeply disgusted that you would be so crass as to provide links to further reading.
The correct action would have been to have made a random claim like "Jesus was clearly and astrologer because everyone knows Capricorn is the best star sign".

J C, does the following sequence of numbers contain CFSI or CFI or whatever you are choosing to call it now?
8372978049 951059731732816096318595024459455346908302642522308253344685035261931188171010 
How would you go abou testing it?

J C

kiffer wrote: »

How dare your display a knowledge of the past!
And I am deeply disgusted that you would be so crass as to provide links to further reading.
The correct action would have been to have made a random claim like "Jesus was clearly and astrologer because everyone knows Capricorn is the best star sign".

The difference between modern Astrologers and modern Creation Scientists is that Creation Scientists have an unbroken scientific linkage back to the 'Founding Fathers' of Modern Science ... and they are conventional scientists using conventional scientific methods to evaluate the physical evidence for creation ...
... and astrologists are ... eh ... em Astrologists!!:)

kiffer wrote: »

J C, does the following sequence of numbers contain CFSI or CFI or whatever you are choosing to call it now?
8372978049 951059731732816096318595024459455346908302642522308253344685035261931188171010 
How would you go abou testing it?

CFSI is found in artefacts ... and if testing an artefact for the presence of CFSI ... it's Complexity, Functionality and Specificity must be objectively established, in order to deem it to be CFSI.

In the case of your sequence of numbers, they are objectively Complex and Information. The issue to be established is whether they are Functional and Specified. If they are describing an aspect of some artefact, their Functionality would need to be established i.e. are they describing a functional process or phenomenon - and their Specificity would also need to be established by making random changes to the sequence and observing whether this eliminates it's functionality.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

J C, is there a reason why you're refusing to continue our discussion? You were claiming that it's impossible for a random change to produce an increase in information quality, but you haven't backed up that rather bizarre claim.

Both intuitively and observantly, random changes to Complex Functional Specified information always reduce the information quality, often to the point of catastrophe and total failure of the particular system.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Also, what is the SI unit for CFSI?

CFSI is measured as probability ... with the definitive presence of CFSI being established, where probabilities in excess of the Universal Probability Bound of 10^-150 are detected. In practice, all probabilities below 10^-100 are sufficient to conclude that CFSI is present.

Delirium

CFSI is a measurement of probability but can also be described as "definitive presence"?

So it's not a property of an organism but rather someone saying, "it's highly unlikely that man evolved from ape".

Dembinski wasn't able to prove the math. The evidence of that is science still accept evolution as the best explanation for diversity of life on Earth.

TheChizler

Could you show us the mathematical proof of how random changes always reduce the quality? And also the mathematical definition of quality?

Intuitively it doesn't make sense to say it would always reduce 'quality'. You could have two very similar 'artifacts' with one having a slightly higher 'quality' that would differ bar only slight changes in 'information'. Given enough chances, what's to stop a random change bridging the two?

I'm emphasising words that I don't have a clue of the definition, and honestly am slightly suspicious, of.

J C

SW wrote: »

CFSI is a measurement of probability but can also be described as "definitive presence"?

Where probabilities below 10^-100 are established for a particular system, it can be definitively concluded that it is CFSI that could only be produced by an ultimate input of intelligence.

We rarely use the 10^-100 test as even relatively simple biological processes have probabilities well below the Universal Probability Bound of 10^-150.
This is calculated by multiplying the number of elementary particles in the Universe, the maximum possible number of elementary particle transitions (the inverse of the Planck time) per second, and the number of seconds in a billion times the current (Conventional) age of the Universe i.e. 13.798×10^9 years or 4.354×10^17 seconds, within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.
Please note that Intelligent Design Advocates are mostly 'long age' i.e. billions of year old Universe adherents.

SW wrote: »

So it's not a property of an organism but rather someone saying, "it's highly unlikely that man evolved from ape".

It is based on a repeatably observable (i.e. scientifically amenable) property of an organism ... and it allows definitive conclusions that, for example, "it is impossible that man evolved from a less genetically sophisticated ancestor". Just like there is increasing entropy in the physical universe (and it can only be locally reversed via an input of energy (that is directed by a processes that is ultimately intelligently designed) there is also increasing entropy in the virtual world of information and its carriers ... and again this can only be locally reversed via an input of CFSI, that is ultimately produced by an intelligence, including such inputs by Humans.

SW wrote: »

Dembinski wasn't able to prove the math. The evidence of that is science still accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Dr Dembski and many others have proven the logic and the math ... and while many Evolutionists still accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth ... many other Evolutionists also privately accept that it is not fit for purpose as an explanation for anything except Natural and Sexual Selection (of pre-existing CFSI diversity).

TheChizler

J C wrote: »

many Evolutionists also privately accept that it is not fit for purpose as an explanation for anything except Natural and Sexual Selection (of pre-existing CFSI diversity) in action.

If they only accept it privately how do you know that many do?

Turtwig

Who revived this thread? Please present yourself to the mod office for a banning?
Thanks.

:pac:

J C

TheChizler wrote: »

If they only accept it privately how do you know that many do?

... by extrapolating from the number who privately confess their doubts to me.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Where it establishes probabilities in excess of 10^-100 for a particular system it can be definitively concluded that it is CFSI that could only be produced by an ultimate input of intelligence.

The above makes no sense. CFSI ( a probability factor) determines that it is CFSI (a probability factor???) that could only be produced by a input from an intelligence??

If the concept Dembinski suggests is correct then how does modern medicine operate frequently is a manner that should be impossible? How do biologists observe organisms changing a fashion in keeping with evolution?

We rarely use the 10^-100 test as even relatively simple biological processes have probabilities well below the Universal Probability Bound of 10^-150.
This is calculated by by multiplying the number of elementary particles in the Universe, the maximum possible number of elementary particle transitions (the inverse of the Planck time) per second, and the number of seconds in a billion times the current (Conventional) age of the Universe i.e. 13.798×10^9 years or 4.354×10^17 seconds, within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.

What does the above mean in lay-mans terms? How does this support the existence of God?

It is based on a repeatably observable (i.e. scientifically amenable) property of an organism ... and it allows definitive conclusions that, for example, "it is impossible that man evolved from a less genetically sophisticated ancestor". Just like there is increasing entropy in the physical universe (and it can only be locally reversed via an input of energy (that is directed by a processes that is ultimately intelligently designed) there is also increasing entropy in the virtual world of information and its carriers ... and again this can only be locally reversed via an input of CFSI, that is ultimately produced by an intelligence, including such inputs by Humans.

If evolution is impossible then why does scientific research support it? Science certainly doesn't accept the account in Genesis as the explanation for the origin of humankind.

Dr Dembski and many others have proven the logic and the math ... and while many Evolutionists still accept evolution as the best explanation for diversity of life on Earth ... many other Evolutionists also privately accept that it is not fit for purpose as an explanation for anything except Natural and Sexual Selection (of pre-existing CFSI diversity).

Nobody has proven what Dembinski claimed as he would have won a nobel prize for science and/or maths.

But feel free to offer some links to scientific journals that have reviewed and confirmed Dembinskis claims.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... by extrapolating from the number who privately confess their doubts to me.:)

so evolutionists are secretly telling you that it's all bunk, yet they continue to work in the field of evolution and produce work that supports the lie that is evolution?

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

Who revived this thread? Please present yourself to the mod office for a banning?
Thanks.

:pac:

J'accuse Gintonious!

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

... by extrapolating from the number who privately confess their doubts to me.:)

JC the voices in your head are not real people.

How many times do we have to tell you this?

Turtwig

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

J'accuse Gintonious!

A snitch eh?
Banned.:pac:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... by extrapolating from the number who privately confess their doubts to me.

SW
so evolutionists are secretly telling you that it's all bunk, yet they continue to work in the field of evolution and produce work that supports the lie that is evolution?

They are not just privately telling me ... but many are expressing their doubts openly and publicly:-

Here are just a few quotes openly expressing doubts about both Darwin and Spontaneous Evolution ... and there are literally thousands more of them:-:)

Barry Gale Science Historian at Darwin College, Cambridge University

"Though often brilliantly and ingeniously composed, his (Darwin's) argument was based, in many instances, on new and often unsubstantiated hypotheses, sometimes fuzzy analogies and metaphors, the repudiation of competing explanations, and a frequent plea to complexity and general ignorance, rather than compelling, clearly incontrovertible evidence in its own support; and it is clear that Darwin knew this." Evolution Without Evidence (1982) p.101


Henry Gee (b. 1962) Senior Editor of Nature

"The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p. 23


"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

"All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted into a small box." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.202

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether." Nature July 12 2001 p. 131


Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002) Former Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University

"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best -- and therefore never scrutinize or question. Ask anyone to name the most familiar of all evolutionary series and you will almost surely receive, as an answer: horses, of course...Modern horses are not only depleted relative to horses of the past; on a larger scale, all major lineages of the Perissodactyla (the larger mammalian group that includes horses) are pitiful remnants of former copious success. Modern horses, in other words, are failures within a failure -- about the worst possible exemplars of evolutionary progress, whatever such a term might mean." Full House (1996) p. 57-71

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology January 1980 p.127

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study." The Panda's Thumb 1980 pp.180-2


... and here are further words of wisdom ... and scientific authority on the complex functional specificity of genetic information from a former Atheist and Evolutionist:-
John C Sanford (b.1950)

"Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let's suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a forth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possible improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty.

There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and are, therefore, poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs that read in opposite directions (i.e., both DNA strands are transcribed Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins, depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e., read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve multiple functions simultaneously (i.e., as a protein-coding sequence and as an internal transcriptional promoter). Some sequences encode for both a protein coding region and a protein-binding region. All elements and origins of replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri- and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (because all DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns that must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences also affect general spacing and DNA folding/architecture, which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given the extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, we know there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs, 2003). There also appears to be extensive, sequence-dependent, three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and with the whole nucleus (Manuelidis, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989) has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple codes (up to 12)." Genetic Entropy 2008 p.131-2

"The poly-constrained nature of DNA serves as strong evidence that higher genomes cannot evolve via mutation/selection except on a trivial level. " Genetic Entropy 2008 p.133

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

JC the voices in your head are not real people.

How many times do we have to tell you this?

The quotes in my last post above, are from real people ... not disembodied voices in either your head, or mine.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

They are not just privately telling me ... but many are expressing their doubts openly and publicly:-

Here are just a few quotes openly expressing doubts about both Darwin and Spontaneous Evolution ... and there are literally thousands more of them:-:)

Barry Gale Science Historian at Darwin College, Cambridge University

"Though often brilliantly and ingeniously composed, his (Darwin's) argument was based, in many instances, on new and often unsubstantiated hypotheses, sometimes fuzzy analogies and metaphors, the repudiation of competing explanations, and a frequent plea to complexity and general ignorance, rather than compelling, clearly incontrovertible evidence in its own support; and it is clear that Darwin knew this." Evolution Without Evidence (1982) p.101

The book is about Darwin proposing evolution without the evidence currently available. It examines how difficult it must have been to develop the theory with what he had available back then. It is not a book stating that evolution is bunk. So you misunderstood the book or mispresented what it states. Anyways, it doesn't support your claim.

Henry Gee (b. 1962) Senior Editor of Nature

"The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p. 23

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

"All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted into a small box." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.202

The book is not saying evolution is bunk.

In the place of traditional biology, Gee offers the field of cladistics, "a way of looking at the world in terms of the pattern that evolution creates, rather than the process that creates the pattern."

That's 0 for 2 btw.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether." Nature July 12 2001 p. 131

Don't have access to that article so can't determine the context of the quote.

Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002) Former Professor of Zoology and Geology at Harvard University

"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best -- and therefore never scrutinize or question. Ask anyone to name the most familiar of all evolutionary series and you will almost surely receive, as an answer: horses, of course...Modern horses are not only depleted relative to horses of the past; on a larger scale, all major lineages of the Perissodactyla (the larger mammalian group that includes horses) are pitiful remnants of former copious success. Modern horses, in other words, are failures within a failure -- about the worst possible exemplars of evolutionary progress, whatever such a term might mean." Full House (1996) p. 57-71

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology January 1980 p.127

Neither of these suggest evolution is bunk. Especially considering one article is called "is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?". Hardly saying it's nonsense.

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study." The Panda's Thumb 1980 pp.180-2

Also doesn't support your claim. Evolution is a slow process.

... and here are further words of wisdom ... and scientific authority on the complex functional specificity of genetic information from a former Atheist and Evolutionist:-
John C Sanford (b.1950)

"Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let's suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a forth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possible improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty.

There is abundant evidence that most DNA sequences are poly-functional, and are, therefore, poly-constrained. This fact has been extensively demonstrated by Trifonov (1989). For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs that read in opposite directions (i.e., both DNA strands are transcribed Yelin et al., 2003). Some sequences encode for different proteins, depending on where translation is initiated and where the reading frame begins (i.e., read-through proteins). Some sequences encode for different proteins based upon alternate mRNA splicing. Some sequences serve multiple functions simultaneously (i.e., as a protein-coding sequence and as an internal transcriptional promoter). Some sequences encode for both a protein coding region and a protein-binding region. All elements and origins of replication can be found within functional promoters and within exons. Basically all DNA sequences are constrained by isochore requirements (regional GC content), “word” content (species-specific profiles of di-, tri- and tetra-nucleotide frequencies), and nucleosome binding sites (because all DNA must condense). Selective condensation is clearly implicated in gene regulation and selective nucleosome binding is controlled by specific DNA sequence patterns that must permeate the entire genome. Lastly, probably all sequences also affect general spacing and DNA folding/architecture, which is clearly sequence dependent. To explain the incredible amount of information which must somehow be packed into the genome (given the extreme complexity of life), we really have to assume that there are even higher levels of organization and information encrypted within the genome. For example, we know there is another whole level of organization at the epigenetic level (Gibbs, 2003). There also appears to be extensive, sequence-dependent, three-dimensional organization within chromosomes and with the whole nucleus (Manuelidis, 1990; Gardiner, 1995; Flam, 1994). Trifonov (1989) has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt multiple codes (up to 12)." Genetic Entropy 2008 p.131-2

"The poly-constrained nature of DNA serves as strong evidence that higher genomes cannot evolve via mutation/selection except on a trivial level. " Genetic Entropy 2008 p.133

A horticulturist who is an intelligent design advocate. Hardly an evolutionist who is still working on evolutionary studies while claiming it's bunk.

So no evidence on your claim that "evolutionists are secretly telling you it's all bunk".

Vivisectus

When in doubt, quote-mine! And lo and behold, you can pretend Stephen Jay Gould secretly thought that Evolution was all bunk!

Hang on - does that mean that if the Pope expresses doubt about a tiny piece of dogma, he is becoming more and more vocal about how all Catholicism is nonsense?

J C

Vivisectus wrote: »

When in doubt, quote-mine! And lo and behold, you can pretend Stephen Jay Gould secretly thought that Evolution was all bunk!

I never said that these people think that Evolution is bunk ... they clearly are Evolutionists ... but they have serious doubts over how and whether it occurs like the modern synthesis suggests it does.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Hang on - does that mean that if the Pope expresses doubt about a tiny piece of dogma, he is becoming more and more vocal about how all Catholicism is nonsense?

If he did ... he could well be.:):eek:

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I never said that these people think that Evolution is bunk ... they clearly are Evolutionists ... but they have serious doubts over how and whether it occurs like the modern synthesis suggests it does.

about how evolution happens over time and categorising various organism, not rejecting it as you have incorrectly suggested.

J C

SW wrote: »

The book is about Darwin proposing evolution without the evidence currently available. It examines how difficult it must have been to develop the theory with what he had available back then. It is not a book stating that evolution is bunk. So you misunderstood the book or mispresented what it states. Anyways, it doesn't support your claim.

Darwin proposed evolution without evidence ... and Spontaneous Evolution still continues to be proposed without evidence to this very day.

Arthur Keith (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." ... as good a reason as any, for believing in Evolution ... I suppose!!!:)

SW wrote: »

A horticulturist who is an intelligent design advocate. Hardly an evolutionist who is still working on evolutionary studies while claiming it's bunk.

He was an atheist and an evolutionist ... but when he discovered the levels of CFSI in living organisms he couldn't bear the cognitive dissonance of continuing to be an Evolutionist and he became an intelligent design advocate instead !!!!:eek::)
...and Dr John C Stanford is not just some 'common or garden' Horticulturalist :-
Quote Wikipedia:-
(Dr) Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell University, and from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor of Horticultural Science. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals.

Inventions
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun". He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor."

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Darwin proposed evolution without evidence ... and Spontaneous Evolution still continues to be proposed without evidence to this very day.

The book about Darwin proposing evolution as a theory was about how difficult it must have been without the evidence that is currently available today.

Arthur Keith (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

Seems your posting nature has made it to Keiths wiki page.

Spurious Quotation

This quote is utilized in publications and websites in an attempt to demonstrate that Sir Arthur Keith, simply dismiss creationist viewpoints outright due to a presumed antitheistic bias.[13] However, in attempting to research this statement, one finds that it usually appears without primary source documentation.[14] In those instances where seemingly original documentation is provided, it is stated to be a Forward for a centennial edition or “100th edition” of Origin of Species.[15] However, several facts show that the attribution of these words to Arthur Keith is erroneous.
Keith died in 1955, some four years before the 100th anniversary of Darwin’s work, so that he was clearly not available to write an introduction for the centennial edition (this was actually done by William Robin Thompson).[16] Furthermore, while Keith did write an introduction to earlier printings of Origin of Species, in use from 1928 to 1958, the words given above do not appear in that introduction.[17] Finally, the last “edition” of Origin of Species is the sixth edition published 1879.[18] It is for this reason that all later publications of Origin of Species are actually reprints of this or earlier editions so that there is simply no “100th edition” of Darwin’s work. In light of the fact that the documentation provided by Creationist publications is specious, one is still left with trying to explain the source of this citation. It is enough to say, however, that since this “quote” lacks valid documentation, it should not be regarded as one that originates with Arthur Keith himself until it can be properly documented.[19]

so less of the misrepresentation of others por favor.

He was an atheist and an evolutionist ... but when he discovered the levels of CFSI in living organisms he couldn't bear the cognitive dissonance of continuing to be an Evolutionist and he became an intelligent design advocate instead !!!!:eek::)
...and Dr John C Stanford is not just some 'common or garden' Horticulturalist :-
Quote Wikipedia:-
(Dr) Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell University, and from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor of Horticultural Science. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals.

Inventions
Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun". He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor."

And what's that do with anything? I don't see anything in his qualifications that show him to be a leading light in evolutionary studies. Nor do I see anything published by him that disprovies evolution. So we have a scientist that rejects the current scientific understanding regarding how humans came to be.

J C

SW wrote: »

The book about Darwin proposing evolution as a theory was about how difficult it must have been without the evidence that is currently available today.

What evidence ??

SW wrote: »

Seems your posting nature has made it to Keiths wiki page.
... so less of the misrepresentation of others por favor.

The quote is valid allright ... and here is a quote along a similar vein from another Evolutionist, Dr Richard Lewontin (b. 1929) PhD Zoology Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " Review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" The New York Review, January 9 1997.
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

SW wrote: »

And what's that do with anything? I don't see anything in his qualifications that show him to be a leading light in evolutionary studies. Nor do I see anything published by him that disproves evolution. So we have a scientist that rejects the current scientific understanding regarding how humans came to be.

... Spontaneous Evolution is not the current scientific understanding regarding how Humans came to be ... it is the current materialistic explanation (and a very shaky one indeed) for how Humans came to be.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " Review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" The New York Review, January 9 1997.

Seriously? A book review? Seriously?

If I publish a skeptical review of the bible, will you accept that as evidence that the Bible is wrong?

J C

SW wrote: »

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

"All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted into a small box." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.202

The book is not saying evolution is bunk.

Not bunk ... just evidentially challenged ... and with the same validity as a bedtime story.:)

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously? A book review? Seriously?

If I publish a skeptical review of the bible, will you accept that as evidence that the Bible is wrong?

It all depends on what you say in the Review.:cool:

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

It all depends on what you say in the Review.:cool:

Ah. Confirmation bias. Fair enough.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah. Confirmation bias. Fair enough.

... no ... just looking at what is said with an open mind.:)