dover court case

How does the ID movement respond to that? I mean, other than calling a church-going republican bush-appointed federal Judge an "activist." What do you guys do? Dover was like a PR karate chop to the face for ID proponents. Anyways, I'm just interested to see what you guys think of the Dover case, and if you can in any way rebut what the court concluded.

IF "There are tons of ways to rebut Judge Jones decision in that case. Where would you like me to start? "
THEN
why has there been no appeal?
SO
What's so crucial about teaching this stuff to kids anyhow? If it's so self-evident they'll get it for themselves when they grow up. It's not like most americans are not already raised in a home without a bible anyway.
I mean Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
The Christian Paradox

after all, it's all a matter of public record!
Like I said before, if there are provable errors then that's a good case for a retrial if ever I heard one.
For example, you said "opportunities to highlight the corruption on the Darwin side.." but nobody on the "darwin" side was proven to have lied in the case so I dont see where the corruption charge comes from.
You said "he didn't listen to the ID arguments at all." but he had to listen, they were stood in front of him in court giving those arguments, he just was not convinced is all.

You said "I already provided you with the resources where you could read about this"
sure, but I thought we were like, chatting about it discussing and that? Ok, no problem.
I was just asking what I thought were obvious questions.
"You probably think that the DASB wanted to "teach Intelligent Design" in the classroom, for example."
In fact in the UK it is being taught in classrooms (or will be shortly). And nobody's complaining really. It's not being taught as science but in religious education. So if not the DASB then still actual real schools.
Just out of interest how many new peer reviewed articles have there been since the ones extant at the time of dover?

brutum wrote:
"Just out of interest how many new peer reviewed articles have there been since the ones extant at the time of dover?"

Why does it matter? Either the Judge knowingly permitted falsehoods into his decision, or he didn't. How many peer reviewed articles have come along since that time is quite irrelevant.

Here's Discovery's page on peer-review:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

It's too bad that they relegate ID to classes on "religion." Obviously those folks don't really have a clue, either. My personal opinion is that it should be taught in schools, but in science class where it belongs. Now, The Discovery Institute is a good bit more conservative on that point… for now they only advocate teaching evolution completely… that is, teach the strengths and the weaknesses. Get it all out on the table, square up with students. Do you favor that, or would you rather hide those weaknesses from students?

In the interest of full disclosure, the DASB merely wanted to have a disclaimer read in class stating that Darwinism wasn't the only game in town and any students who were so inclined could read about the Intelligent Design view on their own time in the school's library. Pretty offensive and opressive, isn't it? ;)

The question isn't how do the IDers respond to the Dover trial. The question is where to the IDers begin addressing how ridiculous Judge Jones' decision in the Dover trial was.

Any legal expert can tell you that Jones did just about everything incorrectly during this trial.

Peterfinch wrote:
"And if it's all down to Jones alone, how come Kansas just lost their ID battle?"

How, exactly, do the Kansas science standards issue relate to ID? Did the standards require the teaching of ID?

peterfinch wrote:
"Seems to me the public voted and got what the majority wanted."

Oh, I see… I guess I didn't realize that science is subject to majority vote. My mistake.

peterfinch wrote:
"Kansas has repealed public school science guidelines questioning the theory of evolution that brought the state international ridicule"

Yeah. Now students in Kansas will learn less about evolution. Does that satisfy you? Do you advocate lying to students and hiding information from them?

There is no appeal because prior to Jones releasing his decision, the Dover Area School Board was voted out of office (November 2005 elections). The new board--being against intelligent design and free thought--decided not to appeal the case.

Forgive me for being blunt, but you seem to be applying a double standard. The ID movement makes alot of hay out of public opinion polls that support "teach the controversy" and elected school boards that implement ID-friendly policies. Yet, you castigate a school board duly elected by the same public when it implements a policy you don't like.

The problem (well, the big problem among many problems) with Jones's ruling is that he did not merely rule on the case before him (as judges should do), but rather, he decided it was his role to define what constitutes good science. Jones had no right to rule on intelligent design and science--he was asked to rule on the constitutionality of the statement in question.

If Judge Jones wasn't supposed to rule on whether or not ID was science, then perhaps the team from Thomas More Law Center shouldn't have made that argument a fundamental part of their defense. After the defense spent so much court time trying to make a compelling case that ID is science, Judge Jones had no other choice but to rule on whether he found the defense's case compelling or not. If you have a bone to pick, it isn't with Judge Jones, it is with TMLC. Once they put the elephant on the table, Jones couldn't very well ignore it.

rrf wrote:
"If Judge Jones wasn't supposed to rule on whether or not ID was science, then perhaps the team from Thomas More Law Center shouldn't have made that argument a fundamental part of their defense."

So let me get this straight… If the TMLC made the guilt of OJ Simplson a fundamental part of their defense in the Kitzmiller vs. DASB trial, then Judge Jones would have been required to issue a ruling on the guilt or innocence of OJ Simpson?

Now I don't have any law training, but it's difficult for me to imagine that the defense in any given court case has the ability or authority to redefine the scope of the judge's ruling during the trial by virtue of the defense that they bring.

rrf wrote:
"Forgive me for being blunt, but you seem to be applying a double standard."

I don't see that SChen24 was applying any kind of double-standard whatsoever. I think he rightly criticized the outgoing board for acting unethically by virtue of what apparently were ulterior motives, and possibly (trying to be charitable here) comitting perjury. I think that far from a double-standard, this demonstrates a certain amount of intellectual integrity.

So let me get this straight… If the TMLC made the guilt of OJ Simplson a fundamental part of their defense in the Kitzmiller vs. DASB trial, then Judge Jones would have been required to issue a ruling on the guilt or innocence of OJ Simpson?

If TMLC had made that argument, they should have been thrown out of court for introducing completely irrelevant arguments and wasting everyones time.

Now I don't have any law training, but it's difficult for me to imagine that the defense in any given court case has the ability or authority to redefine the scope of the judge's ruling during the trial by virtue of the defense that they bring.

Let me spell this out a bit more explicitly. The case was, by necessity, about more than just the motives of the old school board. Motive can be important in deciding an Establishment Clause case, but it may not be the sole factor. If a policy has a legitimate secular purpose, then the religious motives of the board implementing the policy are irrelevant and an Establishment Clause violation may not have taken place. The TMLC basically hung Bill Buckingham out to dry (deservedly so) and made the case that ID is legitimate science and, therefore, the board's motive was irrelevant and the policy had a legitimate secular purpose. The TMLC specifically asked Jones to rule that ID was science. Jones obliged, just not in the way that the TMLC had hoped.

I am confused by this statement. I understand that, as director of an undergraduate ID research center, your background is probably in biology, but I am wondering what article of the Constitution Jones actually ignored?

This activist judge ignored the most important part of the constiution: FREEDOM

That means having religious freedom to uphold and teach our traditional beliefs without interruption from liberal darwin-cultists who believe only their so-called science should be in schools.

I'm praying for an appeal - I just know that if Americans who care about truth and family values unite together we can overturn this travesty of justice.

Again, I didn't defend the TMLC, did I? Did I say that they argued the case well? No, rather, the TMLC really messed things up in Dover. That aside, you are right to say that Judge Jones had no other choice than to rule on whether the defense's case was compelling or not. But he didn't do just that. He went ahead to rule on intelligent design in general, as a science, religion, and theory.

That aside, Dover's policy wasn't a great one. The board members who proposed it knew little about intelligent design and even lied under oath (denying their religious motivations while saying during meetings that somebody had to take a stand for Christ).

SChen24, I'm gonna have to take issue with you here. It seems you are saying that the dover case was lost because the witnesses lied and that TMLC argued the case badly. I think that is what the liberal media want us to think.

Even if the above statements were true, the judge should have given us a break because we are just the latest in a long line of victims of a dirty-tricks conspiracy run by the neo-darwinist thugs who will not be content until they have lied to every child in America.

Jones' verdict was due to a clear materialistic bias in his evaluation of the evidence. And furthermore, Jones made the obvious mistake of comparmentalizing "truth". For example, he seems to accept science as True, but not the wod of the Bible - the book that built America and formed the basis of the Constitution. How can some truths be true and others not? It just doesnt make sense, but thats the way Jones thinks.

The ONLY way we are going to win this is if we take a stand for Jesus and the Truth. We may not be able to appeal in Dover, but I bet we will find another case to fight soon enough and this time we will win.

No, we did not lose Dover because the witnesses lied and because the TMLC argued a poor case.

That was exactly my point: The judge should have overlooked these facts because they were not relevant to the issue. If American judges were to find against every dishonest defendant that makes a poor case then who could have any faith at all in the law to come to the right conclusion? Jones' unjust verdict stands for all time as legal madness.

The case SHOULD have been about wether Dover had a constitutional right to academic freedom, instead the prosecution perverted the case and made it about wether ID is science or not. What right dit the plantif have to game the system by bringing an irrelivant complaint? What right did the judge have to allow them to contine, especially after TMLC had attempted to correct them?

We lost because Judge Jones came into the case have already made his ruling--that ID was simply not a science no matter what. Having Albert Eisntein or Isaac Newton testify for ID wouldn't have helped Dover.

Once again I am in agreement: If Newton and Eienstein were alive today they would almost certainly be adamant supporters of Intelligent Design, unlike the so-called scientsts who opearate today. Had Eienstien been able to complete his life's work I believe he would have inescabably come to the a conclusion which supports ID or Young Earth Creationism.

Even these two great scientists were to make the case for ID then I'm certain that Jones would have ignored their wise words. Just look at what this legal incompetant said about Michael Behe - do you think these sound like fair and balanced words of a legal moderate? I've selected two quotes of his unhinged madness to prove my point:

"Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism"

"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. "

It is the second of the two I find particularly galling: Nobody would be more opposed to astrology than Professor Behe, and to state otherwise is a cruel and absurd ad-hominem attach on one of America's greatest scientists.

The Discovery Institute and open-minded research organizations like Kazmer Ujavorsy's Frontline Science are the true inheritors of the spirit of free inquiry that gave us Eienstein and Newton. What right to an ivory tower biological establishment have to dictate to teachers and American citizens what constitutes real science?

Schen24 writes "Also, this is not a forum to argue about taking stands for Jesus or other religion faiths. All that is fine, but please take it somewhere else."

If we agree to be sifted like wheat here there is no place safe for us.

I think Luke 11:52 says it all: "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

Judge Jones fell for that Darwinist trick of putting all those stupid, irreverent books in front of Professor Behe. A good Christian judge should have thrown them out for such a stunt.

paska wrote:
"What does that quote have to do with what happened at Dover, one way or the other? Why would the religion of the Judge be an issue? Is justice not blind?"

I agree with you, paska. I think the relevant issues are whether Jones listened to and understood the arguments placed before him by the defense, and whether Jones ruled on an issue that was beyond the scope of the trial. Whether he is Christian or not is irrelevant, and I say that as a Christian myself.

And by the way, I think it's pretty clear that the answers to those two questions is "No" and "Yes", respectively.

TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

The Behe cross-examination was one was a textbook guide on how to intimidate a witness. Rather than seek to learn from one of America's greatest sceientist the prosecution sought to destroy Behe's credibility. Where on God's earth did they get the idea that they should behave like that?

When Professor Behe was talking about IC systems like the immune system on the stand, the ACLU lawyer was allowed to put over 50 papers "supposedly" just about the evolution of the immune system. What a cheap, materialist stunt. Did anyone even look at those papers? I doubt it.

Yes, and the prosecution conveniently forgot to mention ant of the hundreds of papers that confirm that the mamallian immune system is IC

Michael Behe, one of America's greatest scientists? Evidence for this?
The prosecution didn't have to go out of their way to 'destroy his credibility'. Behe had already committed that act himself, by making scientific conclusions that are not based on the scientific method, namely when he states "irreducible complexity". Despite the fact that he says the bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" he conveniently ignores the fact that this organization of proteins has verifiable functions when particular proteins are omitted, i.e. in its simplest form, an ion pump.
Besides, how does the prosecution's treatment of Behe as witness lay any evidence whatsoever to ID? Fallacious logic. Are you trying to sympathize with Behe and feel he deserves treatment as a victim of the system? Again, fallacious.
ID is wholly and completely unscientific. Because the scientific process is observable, empirical, and testable. ID can never be. And once you label someone as being Darwinist you automatically assume it to be nothing more than faith based. Science is not based on faith.

Jeff, based upon reading your comments you misunderstand ID in total. Your "arguments" were a list of bare assertions with no supporting evidence. Worse, they were assertions that had been answered many times over if you had ever bothered to read the ID literature at alll. Quite frankly, it was the worst case of trolling I've seen on here in months. It's not about "controlling the facts", it's the fact that you didn't provide any information beyond a hostile opinion.

You say, "it is ironic that it necessitates the need for a site arbitrator." The moderation is not done to limit reasoned discourse. What you're missing is that the only reason we moderate this site is because otherwise we'd be overrun by Darwinists spewing curses and hateful words. The only reason I let your comments through at all is because 1. you did not curse and 2. it's possible you may be capable of discussing the subject matter if given the chance.

When you first attempted to comment I asked the lead moderator to make a decision about your comments. Unfortunately, he apparently hasn't found time in the past week so I decided to handle the situation. So I decided to let these two comments of your through that at least attempt to make an argument.

I'll start with this one statement:

Despite the fact that he says the bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" he conveniently ignores the fact that this organization of proteins has verifiable functions when particular proteins are omitted, i.e. in its simplest form, an ion pump.

A series of small changes have to come about independently, each having positive selective pressure with differing functional roles, and then indirectly come together to form a new whole. This is called an Indirect Darwinian pathway. The reason a Direct Darwinian pathway is not an option is due to Irreducible Complexity since a Direct Pathway requires that a system have positive selective pressure for its function every increment. Darwinists do not like to tacitly admit that IC is a factor but that is why all current research is now directed upon Indirect Darwinian pathways. Unfortunately for Darwinists, that type of scenario is essentially relying on serendipity.

The potential existence of an Indirect Darwinian pathway in configuration space in no way invalidates the fact that the flagellum IS Irreducibly Complex. Now if a workable DIRECT Darwinian pathway for the flagellum were to be found that’d be another story. Again, those who focus their research on Indirect Darwinian pathways implicitly affirm that it is indeed IC. After all, if it wasn’t IC then why not simply point out the Direct Darwinian pathway? Just because something is IC does NOT mean that unguided Darwinian processes potentially could have evolved something Indirectly and that is exactly what Darwinists claim is the case. Denying that the flagellum is not IC at all just makes you appear uneducated in regards to the science involved.

I note you refer to the ion pump. An IC machine cannot, by definition, be the result of a Direct Darwinian pathway. I repeat, Direct means that the steps are selected for the improvement of the same function we find in the final machine. The very fact that you even attempt to make this argument showcases that your comprehension of IC is in error!

IC makes a Direct Darwinian pathway impossible. So, only two possibilities are left: either sudden appearance of the complete machine (practically impossible for statistical considerations), or step by step selection for different functions, and with the target function COMPLETELY INACTIVE for natural selection. This is a point that Darwinists tend to bypass. Darwinists may believe in indirect Darwinian pathways, because it’s the only possible belief which is left for them, but it’s easy to see that it really means believing in impossibilities. There is no reason in the world, either logic or statistical, why a complex function should emerge from the sum of simpler, completely different functions. And even granted that, by incredible luck, that could happen once, how can one believe that it happened millions of times, for the millions (yes, I mean it!) of different IC machines we observe in living beings? The simple fact that Darwinists have to adopt arguments like co-option and indirect pathways to salvage their beliefs is a clear demonstration of how desperate they are.

Anyway, I'm hoping you now understand what IC is. Now that's out of the way you can read what Behe has to say to that common argument you regurgitated:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1831

Essentially, what jfount is saying (and I do hope he's reading this) with the above comment is that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex because he can use the holding bar to pick his nose.

Clearly, Behe's definition of IC excludes this misunderstanding entirely… if only folks would actually read and comprehend his definition.

Just to be clear, are you denying that exaptation doesn't take place?

Patrick wrote:
"Invoking exaptation like a magic wand won't help you here."

He, he. I guess we'd have to call that an "exaptation of the gaps" theory.

I get such a kick out of the irony in this entire debate… the Darwinists inevitably reveal themselves as being guilty of the very things they accuse the IDers of.

It'd be hysterically funny if the outcome didn't matter.

No, you're not properly summarizing the argument by that oversimplification (although even the way I phrased it was simplified).

No, I wasn't aware but I'm presuming you're referring to this:

http://hub.ou.edu/articles/article.php?article_id=1009840354&search_id=1399899613

Klebba writes:

In reality, a number of precursors to the complete flagellar assembly are known. They provide the stepwise development of novel functions, and when juxtaposed together, lead to a selectable trait.

Klebba is speaking of homologs, but fails to mention that a large percentage of the subsystems in the flagellum do not have homologs. Oh, and it's disputed even among Darwinists whether all these subsystems are precursors or whether they evolved subsequent to the flagellum. For example, Darwinists prefer the "T3SS came first" scenario since it makes their argument slightly more plausible.

He continues:

The emergence of the flagellar motility system involves a progression from pili to type-III secretory systems, that acquires the proton-motive, force-driven rotational capability of the ATP synthase motor (a primary source of energy generation) and sensory and regulatory systems that determine the direction and the duration of cell propagation.

Each individual system alone has survival benefits for the cell. When combined one-by-one, they provide a stepwise path to the development of a new advantageous trait: the ability to swim toward something desirable, e.g., high concentrations of sugars — and away from something noxious, e.g., high concentrations of acid.

This is new? It's the same old fallacious argument that I just outlined above! The only addition he glosses over the details and uses personal attacks, insinuations that Dembski must be a biochemist/biologist in order to properly comment on this subject, and employs even more obfuscation. Klebba provides no evidence that Darwinian mechanisms are even capable of such a feat beyond a bare assertion but I suppose since he's a "biochemist" we have to believe him. Which is typical of Darwinists, they never provide evidence beyond the trivial that ID proponents have been claiming is perfectly within the limitations of Darwinian processes for over a DECADE.

This adaptive evolutionary progression is simple and logical, but unfortunately, is not understood by Dembski and his colleagues.

Riiiight...that's why Behe wrote about it back in Darwin's Black Box. Now our knowledge of homologs has increased since then but otherwise nothing much has changed. ID proponents aren't looking for "evolution + 1". We're still looking for one simple example that Darwinian mechanisms are capable of producing what Darwinists assert they can do. Klebba is distorting the debate by implying that the current examples equate to "evolution" and evidence that an Indirect Darwinian pathway is capable is "+ 1". We're still looking for a foundation, not a +1. Darwinism is essentially a theory without a known mechanism proven to work!

In fact, while Darwinists have been happy to rely on story-telling Behe went and tried to find evidence for what Darwinian mechanisms are known to be capable of. The result of that research was published recently in The Edge of Evolution. And even that was far less that I was expecting.

Behe’s latest work analyzing what billions of trillions of generations of p.falciparum accomplished in the way of generating novel complexity without benefit of intelligent agency supports the first prediction. Random mutation and natural selection is almost universally regarded as a process which can generate complex machinery de novo. In principle I believe this is true - given enough time and opportunity to overcome statistical improbabilities (presuming that genetic entropy[deleterious mutation] do not outpace positively selected Darwinian processes). In practice I don’t believe there has been sufficient time and opportunity. The universe is not believed to be either infinite in temporal or spatial dimension and the earth environment is far more limited. RM+NS is the front runner for an alternative mechanism to intelligent agency. Under close observation in a fast eukaryote reproducer, in orders of magnitude more reproduction than all the mammals that ever lived, RM+NS failed to even remotely approach generating any of the genomic complexity that distinguishes modern mammals from their reputed reptilian ancestors. This IMO is a more compelling example of a successful prediction for ID than was the confirmed prediction of cosmic background radiation was for the big bang theory. Possibly further research will reveal a reason why RM+NS failed to produce any significant complexity in p.falciparum but as it stands now there is no good explanation for the absence of any significant new complexity with such vast opportunity for it to self-organize.

The only answer I’ve elicited from anyone here to explain the p.falciparum conundrum is that p.falciparum didn’t evolve because it didn’t "need to evolve." In other words it is so perfect already that it can’t improve upon itself.

This answer, aside from being in opposition to neo-Darwinian postulates of random evolutionary trajectories (the answerer seemed to be channeling Lamarck) is quite wrong in the face of the facts of what p.falciparum “needed” in the way of differential reproduction.

Examples:

1. p.falciparum is excluded from a vast reproductive opportunity because it cannot survive in sub-tropical climates. Extending its range into temperate climates would vastly increase its reproductive potential. Evidently the necessary mutations for this require more than just a few interdependent mutations. It failed to increase its range in billions of trillions of generations.

2. The human-produced and administered drug chloroquine has killed billions of trillions of individual p.falciparum yet in billions of trillions of mutational opportunities to resist this drug, which requires just a few point mutations, it only found a way to resist, through random mutation and natural selection, about 10 times. In none of those 10 times did the RM+NS improved version of the parasite pass the improvements on into the parasite population at large.

3. A hemoglobin mutation in humans (sickle cell) confers resistance to p.falciparum (causing it to starve as the mutated hemoglobin clogs up its digestive mechanisms). Again in trillions of mutational opportunities p.falciparum failed to evolve any means of surviving in the sickle cell environment. Evidently this too requires more than just a few chained interdependent mutations.

How does modern evolutionary theory, with all its glut of potential Darwinian mechanisms beyond the modern synthesis's RM+NS, explain these failures to evolve complex structures under intense selection pressure when given far more opportunity to evolve than all the mammals that ever lived?

It's not just that the level of detail is pathetic. We need just ONE case where Darwinian mechanisms are OBSERVED to be capable of producing complex specified structures. Usually Darwinists attempt to proffer deleterious mechanisms that prevent a system from functioning in limited environments where the loss of functionality is advantageous.

Oh, and apparently since you're a PT reader I suppose they never bothered to mention the distinction between the core of ID (which is focussed on design detection) and ID-compatible hypotheses that do indeed offer mechanisms. One is called “directed panspermia” and was most famously described by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel. Life was placed here one time, purposefully, and the initial instance of earth-life was programmed (front-loaded) to unfold over time into all we see today. Phylogeny mirrors ontogeny except for the time scale. Ontogeny leaves virtually nothing to chance. A chicken egg diversifies into a chicken without the acquisition of any additional complexity. All the information required to build a chicken is contained in the single cell from which it starts and nothing but a chicken will result. The egg cell is pre-programmed to divide and diversify into all the cell types, tissue types, organ types, and body plan that comprise an adult chicken. David Springer coined the term “phylogenetic stem cell” to describe the initial life placed on the earth in the fewest words.

There are predictions that can be made by this hypothesis. One of the most important is that there will be no observations of novel complex structures emerging from extant life where the complex information was not there all along waiting to be expressed. So far there are no observations which deviate from that prediction. Another prediction is that as we explore the genomes of diverse organisms (comparative genomics) we’ll find that their inherent complexity was there as far back in time as we can tell. We should find complex genomic information where it doesn’t belong according to common descent as predicted by Darwinism - mammalian genomic components in lines of descent where said components were never expressed, for example. Neo-darwinian theory requires that genomic specifications be expressed before they can further evolve - natural selection cannot operate on unexpressed biological constructs.

The latter prediction is not writ in granite though. There’s no real reason to presume that information no longer required for phylogenetic diversification would be preserved to the modern day. Ontogenesis is a self-terminating process. Phylogenesis may also be a self-terminating process and it may have ended with the production of rational man. In all of recorded history there has been nothing new from evolution beyond minor variations on existing species.

It's not just "Darwinism can't explain this" which is negative argumentation. Try bothering to read the ID literature which discusses the positive arguments.

On a side note, I wanted to elaborate on the poly-constrained nature of the code. The ENCODE consortium’s major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact.

The revelation of a complex interwoven network is a major blow to Darwinists. Now bear in mind, this is only a “feasibility study” of 1% of the Genome. The interwoven complexity is sure to be multiplied exponentially as the effort extends to decipher the remaining 99% of the DNA. This preliminary study, of how DNA is actually encoded, clearly indicates that most, if not the entire 100%, of the DNA is “poly-functional”. Poly-functional simply means the DNA exhibits extreme data compression in its character. “Poly-functional” DNA sequences will exhibit several different meanings on several different levels. For instance, if you were to write a (very large) book similar to the DNA code, you could read many parts of the book normally and it would have one meaning, you could read the same parts of the book backwards and it would have another completely understandable meaning. Yet then again, a third equally coherent meaning would be found by reading every other letter of the same parts. A fourth level of meaning could be found by using a simple encryption program to get yet another meaning. A fifth and sixth level of meaning could be found in the way you folded the parts of the book into specific two and three dimensional shapes. Please bear in mind, this is just the very beginning of the mind bending complexity scientists are finding in the DNA code. Indeed, a study by Trifonov in 1989 has shown that probably all DNA sequences in the genome encrypt for up to 12 different codes of encryption!! No sentence, paragraph, book or computer program man has ever written comes close to that staggering level of poly-functional encryption we find in the DNA code of man.

note: Credit goes to DaveScot and Bornagain77 on UD. Didn't feel like rewriting what's already been written well enough.

TRoutMac, exaptation is compatible with your beliefs as a Creationist. Normally when you refer to exaptation you're talking about complex physical traits evolving (via non-deleterious mutations/positive selection) from earlier traits that had a different adaptive value. Obviously you don't have to accept all scenarios but here is an example. Suppose the ostrich at one time could fly. Due to genetic entropy it lost this ability but now the ostrich uses its wings maintaining stability while running. That's exaptation. Even if the ostrich never did fly it's still using a structure--the wing--that's found in other creatures for a different purpose. An exaptation like wings does not always result in a new function.

We need just ONE case where Darwinian mechanisms are OBSERVED to be capable of producing complex specified structures.
This pretty much encapsulates what ultimately disappointed me about ID. Mountains of work by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of scientists over the the last century and half is deemed of insufficient detail to satisfy. Yet when asked to explain their details, ID advocates proffer, often dismissively, that it isn't a mechanistic theory.

If you think you got a better explanation, I applaud you. But to make any headway in the scientific community you are going to have to put on your helmet, take the field, and play the game. You have more than reached the point where "Darwinism can't do this" and "Darwinists can't explain that" is getting threadbare.

Usually Darwinists attempt to proffer deleterious mechanisms that prevent a system from functioning in limited environments where the loss of functionality is advantageous.

Well, I for one am glad I have not lost my ability to not digest nylon. It doesn't taste very good. Yeah, I know you have an answer for that. Now all you need is an explanation and you might get somewhere.

So instead of offering one example you attack us and put words in our mouth? That's not a good example to onlookers...

if someone can't show you step by microscopic step what really happened millions or billions of years ago you will remain unconvinced.

We have offered evidence of what Darwinian mechanisms have been observed to capable of. You have offered speculation and put words in my mouth. I don't need a time machine, I just need you to point out one example. Don't do another literature bluff by referring to the "mountains of work". Just pick one.

Problem is, I know you don't have an example, at least for the flagellum. I just read the latest attempt in Nature and it's the same ol', same ol'... But I just need ANY example where Darwinian mechanisms were OBSERVED produced complex specified systems. NOT potential evolution scenarios where the mechanisms are assumed. NOT trivial instances where the result is fully within the expectations of ID, like the nylon case.

Or you could at least name the preferred mechanism. After all, the recent report from the National Research Council had an interesting admission:

“Natural selection based solely on mutation is probably not an adequate mechanism for evolving complexity.”

So, if other Darwinists are saying that mechanism isn't sufficient what mechanism is your preference?

terryf wrote:
"No, but you are probably "off-base." Ha ha. I can play the grammar game too. ;)"

Except that I wasn't playing a grammar game. There was nothing wrong with the grammar in the question you were asking. You just framed it in a way that required me to prove a negative. And there's nothing wrong with that, either, if that's the way you want to ask the question. I was just letting you know, via my answer, that I caught that about your question.

If science needs to be based on empirically observable tests, then why should anyone be convinced when you cannot show step-by-microscopic-step what really happened millions of years ago? Are we really supposed to just take all of that on faith?