Have you seen Ewert’s paper on the dependency graph of life?
So you think science proves that God designs the universe as much as it proves that E = MC2 ?
Surely you jest!
That would be the Ewert paper based on mistakes in the genome database. DNA_Jock at TSZ totally destroyed Ewert’s silly claims.
You commented on the work at TSZ so I know you saw it. Yet here you are repeating a claim you know to be false yet again.
4 Likes
Science does not prove anything. Do I think the evidence is as strong that we are in a created universe as E=MC^2? Interesting question 
1 Like
Yes. Rubbish.
Please show us how ID “scientists” have since tested its claims. Or where it has been cited by any actual scientists.
i want to be in focus here.
i dont think so. the flagellum for instance has huge similarity to a real human motor. the same is true for these gears:
(image from youtube)
actually the first tetrapod fossil (actually a track fossil) predate the missing links between fish and tetrapod. so the fossils of the transition between fish and tetrapod are not even in the order that evolution predict. even if they were in the correct order this doesnt prove that they evolved from each other. so you have two problems in this case.
so according to your criteria even PC doesnt need design if all we find about a PC is similar to what we find with living things (able ro reproduce, fossils etc). ok. but before we will discuss about this do you agree that the burdon of proof is on someone who claim that PC dont need design?
Look above a picture published in Behe’s book last year.
OMG, thanks for that! If you hadn’t posted that link, I’d have never read this:
This does seem to confirm my initial prejudice that Winston Ewert has found an overly complicated way of spotting annotation errors, but you are welcome to keep going through the remaining 104 hits.
And this is about the closest thing to actual “science” that @colewd could find. Another own goal from our Bill!
1 Like
So no actual research published by Behe in a peer-reviewed science journal. Just the usual DI sponsored propaganda in a popular press book aimed at ignorant laymen. Got it.
One of the most irritating things about you creationists is that, no matter how often you receive clear explanations of the things you are misunderstanding from well-meaning and patient people for whom the subject is their life’s work, you just blithely continue on spewing the same misinformation as if no one has ever corrected you.
And then you complain about people behaving uncivil towards you. What else do you expect?
2 Likes
Totally destroyed his claims, no evidence…do you really buy into Tim’s hyperbole. There is a weakness in the protein data base of both Winston’s and Gpuccio’s databases that @Rumraket and Jock identified. Do you think these databases are really useless for scientific reasoning?
You identified creationist hyperbole and I agreed with you. You need to be consistent when it is coming from your side.
DNA_Jock showed every example Ewert claimed was merely an error in the database entry. Ewert’s work was brutally bad and therefore his conclusions worthless. But he told you what you want to hear so you ignore Ewert’s blunders like they have never been shown to you.
1 Like
Why are you supporting Tim’s hyperbole with a like? Have you looked into his claim?
Yes. I wonder why you have not mentioned this rather serious problem, if you were already aware of it?
The trouble with Ewert’s work is that it is mostly detached from reality. What should be important about information, is how it informs us about reality.
2 Likes
I have mentioned and discussed many times. It is a problem with the data but the method is solid and going forward the data will improve. I have discussed the issue with both Winston and Paul Nelson.
ID guys are doing work. Ewert came forward and discussed his method here. He was also was very candid about the current weaknesses in the data bases after Jock made me aware of them.
Why do you think it is detached from reality?
No, it won’t. No ID “researcher” will do the obvious thing and apply his claim to larger numbers of organisms, and not just the minute number he had cherry picked, to see whether this produces more robust results than standard phylogenetic techniques. As simple as that work would be, that’s just too much work for an ID’er, and Ewert has already accomplished what he needs to do: Write a bunch of stuff that sounds just science-y enough to impress the illiterate rubes who support ID.
Mark my words.
1 Like
Why are you ignoring DNA_Joke’s complete smachdown of Ewert’s blunders? Is that how to do honest science?
1 Like
It’s Bill’s selective amnesia. Bill forgets every piece of evidence he’s been shown which refute his ID-Creation claims. That’s why we get him repeating the same PRATTs over and over and over and over…
2 Likes