No, the main difference is that ID theory makes no arguments based on the Bible or any other religious revelation, but relies wholly on evidence provided by nature. This is explained in the Discovery statements you refused to read.
Could be the ‘big tent’ strategy of DI at work too. Or just running a search & replace for ‘creator’ to ‘designer’ and ‘creationism’ to ‘design’ when updating textbooks.
1 Like
No, they don’t. The article you reference has a video showing how they swim: they’re foot-propelled divers, just like other cormorants. It seems odd that the author of that article seems unfamiliar with the hundreds of other swimming bird species. Most such taxa are foot-propelled, but a few are wing-propelled. Cormorants are in the former groups, not the latter. In some foot-propelled divers the wings are used as rudders, but the Galapagos cormorant, based on the video, doesn’t appear to use its wings even for that.
3 Likes
The rationality comes from the basic problem of evolution working through a complex sequence and finding different functions.
You believe in the paradigm that universal common descent is true and that is your working assumption. It is not mine.
I am surprised you do not see the problem here. How would a bird experience loss of flight and survive? What how many mutations are required for loss of flight? How did that occur?
How did I believe in common descent for 59 years and then change my position?
When I discovered DNA was sequence dependent and after lots of discussion decided that you don’t have a valid theory as universal common descent is just an inference against creation proposed by Darwin as the most parsimonious explanation.
When I look at transitions like the prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell the theory has great difficulty explaining these changes given the new sequences required.
The discovery of the properties of the cell have been very problematic to this hypothesis.
That’s only because ID dropped all its references to the Christian God to circumvent U.S. laws against teaching religious creationism. I know it, you know it, the DI knows it, and the scientific community knows it. Even Meyer finally came out and admitted it. Continuing to push the “ID isn’t about religion” lie isn’t working with anyone anymore.
3 Likes
I am not the only one who is bring up this problem. This discussion has been going on for 50 years.
Oops; once again you have confused common descent with the origin of innovation. You seem incapable of seeing the difference, however many times it’s explained.
That’s completely irrational. A bird population that doesn’t need flight to survive will lose the ability fairly quickly, since there is a cost to maintaining useless features. Thus the Galapagos cormorant. Thus over 700 cases of flightless rail species on oceanic islands. There are even species in which some individuals are flightless and others are not. This nonsensical objection shows your bias quite clearly.
I have doubts that you did any such thing. And once more you are confusing common descent with causes of innovation.
2 Likes
(facepalm) Bill we have dozens of extant flightless bird species which survive just fine without taking to the air. How do they do it?
Look at the Galapagos cormorants. Their ancestors could both fly and dive into water to catch fish. The ones in the Galapagos came to need the flying ability less and less so they slowly lost that ability as their ability to swim underwater increased. Loss of flight didn’t happen overnight to any of these species. Good grief.
Correct. Other creationists do too.
2 Likes
I see no evidence that Galapagos cormorants are any better at swimming underwater than other cormorants. What do you have?
If when you speak of common descent do you mean guided evolution is on the table?
If so, as I said originally, I would not doubt many of these transitions are partially due to common descent.
You know no such thing, and I know no such thing. Behe was taught in Catholic parochial school that evolution was fine! He accepted Darwinian theory all through his scientific training and afterward, until he started reading up on what it could actually explain, versus what it claimed to explain. Religion had nothing to do with his motivation, at all. A similar story could be told for Sternberg, for Denton, and for many other ID supporters, including me. Also for David Berlinski, who though not an ID supporter is a Discovery Fellow. His challenge to Darwinism didn’t arise from the Bible, since he is a secular Jew (his own description). Numerous other ID supporters are agnostic, Deist, Hindu, etc. and have no connection with battles to put creationism into the schools. I attended an ID conference on information theory and biology, at which all participants were strictly enjoined not to bring religious issues into the discussion of the papers, and they obeyed that injunction. You know nothing at all about the ID community or the motivations of many of its people. You merely repeat rumor and hearsay. Your words should be ignored by everyone here, because they are uninformed.
1 Like
Sure as they have other features like size and land speed. What you have not established is that actual loss of flight occurred.
I know it and so does the scientific community. Meyer of the DI actually came out and admitted it. You’re either lying to everyone or lying to yourself.
3 Likes
Meyer is free to speak of his own personal belief that the designer is God. That does not support the charge you are making.
Meyer was speaking for the DI, that propaganda organization you zealously defend.
2 Likes
And non creationists. James Shapiro, Murray Eden etc. The sequence problem is not new and not only a creationists issue.
Meyer said specifically that the motive of ID theory from the beginning was to endorse the Christian God and make America Christian again? Please give us the exact quotation, and source.
We all get it, Tim.