You shouldn’t. So why do you, and everyone else here, and everyone on BioLogos, feel the constant compulsion to try to browbeat me into accepting that unguided causes produced the whales out of a primitive artiodactyl? If you don’t care what I think, why have you and all the others wasted an estimated one million words, and hundreds to thousands of hours, over the past ten years trying to get me to change my mind?
Pretty foolish behavior, if you don’t care what I think, wouldn’t you say?
I await the raw data and summary results of this imaginary survey which polled “every single member of the scientific community with relevant expertise” on the question of design.
It’s funny because scientists have published mutation-by-mutation accounts for much smaller-scale evolutionary changes (like the emergence of some novel trancription factor), and yet Eddie’s cohort of religious crackpots don’t accept that either. One has to wonder what it would then take to convince them, if they can’t even accept a mutation-by-mutation account involving only three mutations and their phenotypic effects. Imagine what a colossal waste of time and money it would be to try to recreate the 10 million year evolutionary transition of a large animal involving many thousands of mutations. Would this then suddenly turn around and convince drooling biblethumpers who can’t even wrap theirs scrubbed brains around a mere 3?
Now ironically @Eddie is simply fantasizing about “losing” the battle for public opinion. I’m sure he even knows this himself, so he’s actually just trolling.
Only basic microevolutionary theory is important for matters regarding viruses, antibiotic resistance, etc. And everything that science has discovered on that front is quite compatible with outright Young Earth Creationism, let alone ID.
I’ve never seen YEC work regarding any aspect of actual microevolution. Could you please link to some of their published papers? Of course anything and everything one can conceive is compatible with ID since ID “Designer” is omnipotent with no limitations.
No problem, here ya go:
I cited the paper because it was providing MtDNA sequence comparison.
Hybridization is additional evidence for common ancestry among genus Crocodylus.
Then you are severely clueless. Sorry.
It’s the only evidence you have managed so far, even though you don’t realize it, and the genus Crocodylus isn’t what we’re talking about here. Don’t change the subject.
A shameless bluff. I asked you to connect me to a survey, not the the Pub Med general site. Try again.
The paper is not comparing MtDNA sequences?
MtDNA sequences are not evidence? John, with all due respect what are you talking about?
Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
How so?
Mitochondrial DNA sequencing
Total DNA was isolated for the samples from tail scale tissue preserved in 95% ethanol, using the NucleoSpin® kit for DNA extraction (Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany) following manufacturer’s instructions. A total of 716 base pair (bp) segment of mtDNA including the tRNAPro-tRNAPhe-D-loop region (hereafter referred to as D-loop) was amplified as a single fragment for all individuals using primers drL15459 (5′-AGGAAAGCGCTGGCCTTGTAA-3′) and CR2HA (5′-GGGGCCACTAAAAACTGGGGGGA-3′) (Weaver et al., 2008) except for individuals from the Florida Everglades and Belize. Two overlapping fragments of cytochrome b (cytb) covering a total of 1,320 bp were amplified by polymerase chain reactions (PCR) using the primers L14212 (5′-TTG GGC TTT AGACCA AGA CC-3′) with CB3H (5′-GGC AAA TAG GAA RTATCA-3′) (Palumbi, 1996), and L14849 (5′-TCCTCCACGAACGCGGAR C-3′) with H15453 (5-CCKTCCAYYTCTGTCTTACAAG-3′) (Milián-García et al., 2011). We also amplified a 665 bp fragment from the 3′ end of cytochrome oxidase I (COI) using the primer pair COIa (5′-AGT ATA AGC GTC TGGGTA GTC-3′) with COIf (5′-CCT GCA GGA GGA GGA GAY CC-3′) (Kessing et al., 1989).
Just stop.
Here’s something you need to understand: You don’t get to just arbitrarily decide what sort of evidence is acceptable to support a claim. If someone is on trial for murder and there is abundant DNA evidence to prove his guilt, his lawyer is not going to get very far if his only defense is “I didn’t ask for DNA evidence. I asked for a video of my client committing the crime. Do you have that?”
If the hypothesis that there is any more than negligible support from evolutionary biologists for the “design argument”, this would be reflected in the peer reviewed literature. I am not aware of so much as a single such article that was not produced by someone affiliated with the Discovery Institute, AKA the aforementioned “small gaggle of dogmatic fundamentalist Christian extremists.”
But you are quite welcome to present evidence to the contrary if there is any…
The search function on my blog’s webpage certainly seemed to stump him…
I ignore the rest of your post, since it is a long-winded attempt to divert attention from the fact that you made a claim that you are unwilling to document. You made this claim:
I asked you to document that claim.
Your response was to provide a link to a site which you implied contained the verification of the claim. It turned out to be just the general PubMed site, i.e., it was not a web page where the claim was verified. You might as well have directed me to the Google search engine. So you pretended that you had given documentation, when you hadn’t.
The only reasonable conclusion is that your claim is simply a fabrication of your own, not a report of any properly done survey.
But there’s nothing new in that. Evolutionary theorists have been fabricating unwarranted biological claims for 150 years, so it’s not surprising that they (or their groupies) would fabricate nonexistent surveys of scientists regarding intelligent design.
I made no reference to any survey. That is entirely your own fabrication.
I guess you would also demand a “survey” to confirm that few geologists believe in a flat earth?
Laughable…
Not in your initial statement, but when I asked you for a survey to back up your statement, you gave me a link to PubMed, implying that if I looked there I would find such a survey. And you knew there wasn’t one there. So you were being disingenuous in offering that link.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria: you say what??
They’re still bacteria derpity derp derp derp.
All covered and explained many times by Michael Behe in his books. Antibiotic resistance is well explained by Darwinian principles. So are changes in the fur color of bears, and many other things. But one can fully acknowledge this capacity without accepting “evolution” in the broad sense. The most hard-line YEC accepts antibiotic resistance and other such micro-changes. If God came down tomorrow and proved beyond a doubt that he created all the “kinds” separately, bacteriologists and virologists could continue to do their work exactly as they do now. They’d just stop putting the gratuitous macroevolutionary “spin” in their article write-ups, a spin which is entirely useless from the point of view of medical treatment. We don’t need to know a bloody thing about how many billion years ago a group of bacteria is supposed to have come into existence in order to save any human life.