Claims of Peer Review for Intelligent Design examined … and debunked 46


One of the many variations of modern creationism (the folks that claim ‘god did it’ is the right answer) is called “Intelligent Design”. There they attempt to refute evolution via the promotion of scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, and also attempt to make it more palatable by omitting all religious terms from what is essentially a religious claim. Well, if they wish to take a scientific approach, then this becomes quite interesting because this is a measurable claim, all we need to do is to take a look and see if they have published any credible peer-reviewed articles within any recognised scientific journals.

Does this matter? Sadly yes it does, a good percentage of the public do still seriously doubt the reality of evolution as a well-established scientific fact, they have been successfully conned by some supposedly credible claims, so it is indeed appropriate to throw a spotlight upon the intelligent design community and reveal that their aura of credibility is simply an illusion.

Almost two years ago, I went through the list of Peer-reviewed articles posted up by the Discovery Institute, a well-financed US-based group that promotes Intelligent Design. What did I find? … (Oh come on, you can guess) … yes, that’s right, exactly nothing, they did not have anything credible, not one jot.

They have since then revised their list and greatly extended it, so the time is now right for a return visit to this bastion of creationist “peer-reviewed” fodder.

The title remains the same, “PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED)“. My approach will be the same as last time – basically apply an initial filter to remove the junk, then take a look at what remains. But first, there is an observation to be made about some initial commentary they have added. They now make this claim …

Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper.

Seriously!! … Origin of Species, published in 1859, was not published in a peer-review journal, so that justifies adding books to their list. Do they not know that the Peer review process has only been a touchstone of the modern scientific method since the middle of the 20th century. No, the bottom line here is simple, books are out, anybody can publish anything (Harry Potter is evidence that Magic is real … right?), if they wish to refute evolution and propose an alternative, then they need to engage with the scientific community with real data, and publish it within a credible and appropriate scientific journal.

The Filter

OK, on to my initial filter:

  • There are articles from a Journal called BIO-ComplexityThis is not a credible peer-review journal, instead it is a creationist journal issued by the Biologic Institute. They in turn are funded by the Discovery Institute … yes, it is their own pet journal and has exactly zero credibility within the scientific community, we can ignore all that.
  • There are also articles from Life : Yet another journal that has no scientific credibility and is treated as something to laugh at, we can ignore that as well.
  • The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics : This is a fringe publication of the featherweight Wessex Institute of Technology, in other words it is also not a real scientific journal, but is simply a vanity journal that publishes papers written by its own editors. McIntosh, the author of a listed paper, is on their Editorial Board, and one of their other editors is the young earth creationist Stuart Burgess
  • Papers published as part of the proceedings of a conference are not recognised peer-reviewed journals, we can ignore these.
  • Chapters within books are not peer-reviewed journals, so they can also be tossed.
  • Peer-Edited and Editor-Reviewed articles are not peer-reviewed articles … finding these tossed in to inflate the list really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
  • Articles in Philosophy journals … er no, we can ignore these, if you want to make claims regarding biology, you publish in a biology journal, and you also need real data.
  • Anything by David Abel, all his papers consist entirely of non-evidentially supported, non-laboratory confirmed, pure fabrication (I let a couple through this filter so that you can see what I’m on about). About 17% of the list is by him and can happily be ignored.
    • Least you pause on the thought of a named individual being a filter, it is simply a short-cut to eliminate papers that are long-winded assertions that contain no data at all — no experiments, no measurements, and no observations  … nada. Should he write a paper that contains some analysis of actual data, then this filter does not apply.
    • So who exactly is this guy? He is David Abel, Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life. Science Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr. Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA, at least that is the title on his papers. Wow, sounds impressive … but google that address and you discover it is an ordinary residential house. Yes, the entire foundation is in his garage, and he is the sole representative. Somebody checked him out, this impressive sounding title and organization is a sham and is not real. The claimed title is completely fraudulent.
    • But why does he get published? … well because Abel is making an argument, of sorts, and is backing it up with a reasonable amount of scholarship and some fancy sounding mathy stuff. On the surface it looks credible, so you need to read it all several times to work out that the assertions being made are not actually credible. Rarely do you find bullshit so tortuously Byzantine as the stuff churned out by him, which I guess is by intention.

What do we have left after filtering?

Well, lets take a look at the remains.

Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

  • This is a medical journal, a rather odd place to attempt to refute evolution.
  • The article itself is poorly written, dreadful, and full of scientific errors. It’s an embarrassment to the author, to the journal, and to the field of medicine as a whole. In essence we have a medical doctor claiming evolution is bunk and repeats the usual debunked Discovery Institute claims.
  • Is it credible? Nope, a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, explains why it is not. – Fail

Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010). 

  •  Jerry Coyne has a good summary, he writes “this paper gives ID advocates no reason to crow that a peer-reviewed paper supporting intelligent design has finally appeared in the scientific literature.  The paper says absolutely nothing—zilch—that supports any contention of ID “theory.” – Fail

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,”Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010). 

  • Published where? Yes, that is indeed a very obscure journal.
  • An Australian science communicator and biology student, explains here why this is just another daft paper that is not credible. – Fail.

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

David L. Abel, “Constraints vs Controls,” The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 4:14-27 (January 20, 2010).

  • Yes indeed a paper by Mr Abel, and sure enough, no actual data, no experiments, no measurements, and  no observations
  • The first eight references in it are him simply citing other similar papers he has written.
  • And what about the journal? It is an obscure IT journal that handles articles that relate to human computer interaction. – Fail

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 39(5):1051-1061 (September, 2009).

  • What do others have to say about this, do they find it credible as an ID paper? Nope, see reviews here, and here, and here.
  • Dembski has, for years, been pushing an argument based on some work called the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems. The NFL theorems prove that average over all possible search landscapes, no search algorithm can outperform a random walk. The NFL theorems are true and correct – they’re valid math, and they’re even useful in the right setting. In fact, if you really think about it, they’re actually quite obvious. Dembski has been trying to apply the NFL theorems to evolution: his basic argument is that evolution (as a search) can’t possibly produce anything without being guided by a supernatural designer – because if there wasn’t some sort of cheating going on in the evolutionary search, according to NFL, evolution shouldn’t work any better than random walk – meaning that it’s as likely for humans to evolve as it is for them to spring fully formed out of the ether. This doesn’t work for a very simple reason: evolution doesn’t have to work in all possible landscapes. Dembski always sidesteps that issue.
  • So yes, this is an appropriate publication in its context, and the maths is OK, but claims that it supports ID when applied to Evolution are not in this paper. Nor can that claim be substantiated by any data from either here or anywhere else
  • Status as a paper that supports ID – Fail.

Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

  • Sternberg’s paper is a theoretical one in which he takes a structuralist approach and proposes “that a variety of structural realism can assist us in rethinking the concepts of DNA codes and information apart from semantic criteria
  • Little problem … no empirical data, so as a paper that actually support ID in our reality – Fail

Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

  • This paper describes a computer program (Stylus) that was used for the study of protein evolution using Chinese characters
  • The paper does not offer any support for ID. Indeed, Konrad Sheffler (the PloS editor for the manuscript) explicitly notes that he “did not detect any such [ideological] bias [towards ID] in this manuscript; nor do the results support intelligent design in any way.”
  • As he also points out, “there is still no substitute for empirical data” when examining biological processes – Fail

Michael Sherman, “Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution,” Cell Cycle, Vol. 6(15):1873-1877 (August 1, 2007).

  • This a paper that makes some dodgy claims from ignorance that evolution can’t explain the Cambrian explosion or the evolution of body plans. It is then followed by an alternative hypothesis which explains nothing that can’t be explained by evolutionary biology, and simply relies on gaps in our knowledge to create doubt. (rebuttal here) – Fail

Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

  • Ah yes a “ground breaking” paper that is cited many times, but mostly by the authors (Especially Mr Abel), and has failed to be of interest to anybody else.
  • There’s no reference to ID theory anywhere in this paper, nor is there any reference to the terminology used in ID. The paper does not actually support ID in any way at all, it simply describes a method to measure the functional sequence complexity. – Fail

Felipe Houat de Brito, Artur Noura Teixeira, Otávio Noura Teixeira, Roberto C. L. Oliveira, “A Fuzzy Intelligent Controller for Genetic Algorithm Parameters,” in Advances in Natural Computation (Licheng Jiao, Lipo Wang, Xinbo Gao, Jing Liu, Feng Wu, eds, Springer-Verlag, 2006); Felipe Houat de Brito, Artur Noura Teixeira, Otávio Noura Teixeira, Roberto C. L. Oliveira, “A Fuzzy Approach to Control Genetic Algorithm Parameters,” SADIO Electronic Journal of Informatics and Operations Research, Vol. 7(1):12-23 (2007).

  • “Advances in Natural Computation” are the proceedings of a computer science conference and is not a peer-reviewed journal – Fail
  • “SADIO Electronic Journal of Informatics and Operations Research” – An Argentinian Computer Science journal that is not actually peer-reviewed – Fail

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Kurt Stüber, Heinz Saedler, Jeong Hee Kim, “Biodiversity and Dollo’s Law: To What Extent can the Phenotypic Differences between Misopates orontium and Antirrhinum majus be Bridged by Mutagenesis,”Bioremediation, Biodiversity and Bioavailability, Vol. 1(1):1-30 (2007).

  • Ah yes, Dollo opus by Mr Lönnig and his former boss at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding, plus others. This of course is the same chap who is on the editorial board of BIO-Complexity, the Discovery Institute’s pet journal.
  • This paper has not exactly caused much interest, it has been cited exactly four times … by Lönnig himself, and nobody else.
  • The term “Intelligent Design” is deployed exactly once in this paper – at page 18 about half way through.
  • It is all rather weird really, they explain that they tried to use mutagenesis experiments to cause some related plants to revert to a more “primitive” forms, but failed to do so, and thus suggest that this confirms Dollo’s law. They then proceed to use this as an excuse to plug a bunch of pro-ID people into the paper for no reason at all other than to promote their ideas, but none of it is justified in any way by their failed experiments – Fail

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology, Vol. 1:601-607 (2006).

  • This was from an invited paper to a book on commercial flower growing.
  • This so-called “law” seems to exist only in the imagination of Lönnig. No one else has ever referenced, or ‘applied’ it, and it has been cited exactly 4 times by (oh I’m sure you can guess) Mr Lönnig himself and nobody else.
  • It boils down to the (apparent) limit of induced mutation within plants to alter phenotype (esp. outward appearance) before the chemicals, or radiation used kills the organism. This is hardly big news. Particularly in plants, more new species are the product of  polypoid hybrids then any point mutations alone.
  • Includes references to Behe (his long discredited Irreducible complexity), and also Dembski (no free lunch of course) – yes, he is indeed rather desperately plugging in all the ID stars.
  • Does this paper actually support Intelligent Design in any way at all? Nope, it is just another of Lönnig’s failed experiments being used  as an excuse to promote ID thinking without any justification at all.  – Fail

Øyvind Albert Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,”Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 28:1000–1004 (2006). – 

  • It’s a paper in a maths journal; what we have here is an attempt to take Gödel’s theorem and try to apply it to something other than formal axiomatic systems … oh that’s such a bad idea. This is a journal for fractals, so it is no shock that the reviewers had the wool pulled over their eyes. If they were familiar with Gödel and information theory it would not have been published. Here is a link to an appropriate Subject matter expert who attempts to digest this and ends up spitting it out.
  • So in summary, it is not just a paper out of context, it is a bad paper that does not hold together – Fail

Kirk Durston and David K. Y. Chiu, “A Functional Entropy Model for Biological Sequences,” Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete & Impulsive Systems: Series B Supplement (2005).

  • And here we have a paper that is filled with unsupported assertions and unnecessary verbosity (this is very much becoming a theme with many of these paper). What it completely lacks is any evidence for any of the claims. If you disagree, then you might want  to read the discussion with Durston on Jeff Shallit’s blog here – Fail

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, Vol. 2(29):1-15 (August 11, 2005).

  • Yes, another Abel paper consisting entirely of non-evidentially supported, non-laboratory confirmed, pure fabrication as usual. – Fail

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Vol. 98: 155-166 (2005). – 

  • This is a non-peer reviewed proprietary journal. The article was only published here after the DI sponsored it – no regular journal would have it.
  • However, it was recognised, and did indeed win an award; it was voted “crankiest” on crank.net – Fail.

Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

  • Yet another article that does not support Intelligent design theory. That fact was established during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, you can read the testimony here that proves this.
  • If that is not enough, then here is a detailed analysis of the paper. – Fail

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

  • This article was indeed peer-reviewed according to the normal procedures. The conclusions, however, were rapidly and voluminously disputed by others in the field, and the controversy was addressed by the editors. It argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. It’s assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005). – Fail

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004)

  • All we actually have here is a very bad attempt to reorganize already existing information. This article was not peer-reviewed according to the standards of the Biological Society of Washington, but rather slipped into the journal by an editor without proper review.
  • The publisher later withdrew the article, but that well-known fact does not appear to deter the DI from claiming it – Fail.

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

  • Nothing resembling an actual scientific hypothesis or theory is presented by this paper and it contains exactly zero evidence.
  • It does however give a great example of a truly weird bit of wishful thinking, and yes he is a kook, but then most creationists are, so I guess he fits right in. – Fail

David K.Y. Chiu and Thomas W.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 4(3):766-775 (September 2002).

  • Chiu and Lui do mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
  • This paper does not actually support ID – Fail

Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

  • Here we find that Denton and Marshall and Legge et al. deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. explicitly refers to natural law. – Fail

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

  • Annual Review of Genetics does not publish new research results; it publishes review articles, which summarize the current state of thinking on some topic. Although the thrust of the article is in opposition to the modern evolutionary picture, nowhere does it mention “design”. It references Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out. This article does not support ID – Fail

Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

  • Axe finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple of proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe’s paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said at the time that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42). – Fail.

Solomon Victor and Vijaya M. Nayak, “Evolutionary anticipation of the human heart,” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 82:297-302 (2000).

  • Quick summary, “Gosh this is really complicated, I have no idea how it could have happened naturally, so God must have done it“, and so this is what happens when you stray outside your area of expertise – Fail

Solomon Victor, Vljaya M. Nayek, and Raveen Rajasingh, “Evolution of the Ventricles,” Texas Heart Institute Journal, Vol. 26:168-175 (1999). 

  • Yes, it is just an earlier draft of their appeal to ignorance – Fail

Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

  • A rather daft paper that gives guidance on how to teach “God did it”, but does not offer any actual evidence – Fail.

William G. Pollard, “Rumors of transcendence in physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 52 (10) (October 1984).

  • Another daft and rather old paper that claims that because our mathematical laws of nature explain the world, it is a miracle — er no, it can’t be otherwise. The laws of nature describe the world we know and that world is a reflection of our thinking and our language. – Fail

… and that is it, the entire list, every possible vague reference that they could  dig up from a trawl through all the scientific literature going back over almost thirty years, and we end up with nothing credible, not one jot, nada … zilch … exactly zero. You see, the reason that 99.9% of biologists reject creationism is not because they are biased or brainwashed, but because there is no credible evidence.

In stark contrast to the output of scientific creationism, hundreds of papers are published each month by authors that find that evolution explains their results. One would think that, if intelligent design had any scientific merit, then there would be a significant number of papers published each month presenting evidence of supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer. Surely the many religious scientists, in particular, wouldn’t fail to publish results that support intelligent design.

Conclusion
The complete lack of any credible scientific evidence tells you all you really need to know. Is there any scientific foundation for Intelligent Design? The quick one word summary is “No“.

With no credible evidence on the table, any and all creationist claims need not be addressed, but instead should simply be dismissed. If they wish to ever assert a claim that is not dismissed, then they need to first go do some science that backs it up.


Leave a Reply

46 thoughts on “Claims of Peer Review for Intelligent Design examined … and debunked

  • Jimmy

    It’s hilarious to see such pathetic and ambiguously silly responses to a body of peer-reviewed literature. Indeed, trying to find the smallest thing conceivable that you can pick at, and concluding with a “Fail”, when the only fail is the article. Indeed, a two lines response to published peer review is not a response at all.

    If the publishers of these papers saw this nonsense, they would have a good laugh, and then point out the massive contradictions, inconsistencies, errors, and erroneous “fail” accusations.

    • Dave Post author

      Why not pick the best strongest most robust paper and then explain why it is not a “fail”. If your comment is correct then it should be easy.

      • Jimmy

        I wonder if you understood the purpose of my comment at all, LOL. The fact is, as I explained, peer reviewed papers for a fact simply cannot be dismissed by two or three lines of ambiguous text. As I pointed out, if you simply contacted the authors, presented your ridiculous quick-liners, they would have a good laugh and certainly defend their work from such fatuous accusations.

        If I did exactly what you did, and applied it to evolutionary peer review, I would be able to peel of thousands in a matter of hours. With such knowledge, this methodology can be dismissed as nonsensical. Let’s take your first response for example. It amounts to “this is all garbage because this guy says so”. The fact is, ANY anti-evolution peer-review is sure to get, and simply citing attacks is not quite an intelligently designed argument, LOL.

        • Dave Post author

          Jimmy, to be brutally frank, you don’t appear to grasp what the peer-review process is all about. It is essentially a conversation within the scientific community. None of those papers are gaining any traction basically because they are not making a reasonable evidence-based case. It is all driven by an already existing religious inspired conclusion.

          So yes, they can and are dismissed because they are not making credible arguments that withstand any analysis. To pick out the example you cite, you claim that this basis for the rejection of the first one amounts to “this is all garbage because this guy says so”. That is not a factual claim but is instead a distortion. I’m not claiming, here is a guy who says so, I’m pointing you are a link by a subject matter expect who takes it apart point by point and explains exactly why Mr Kuhn is not making a credible argument.

          It is wholly appropriate for Mr Kuhn to publish, but it is also wholly appropriate for Jerry Coyne to examine it in detail and pull it apart. That is a conversation, Mr Kuhn’s paper does not stand in isolation, but instead is part of a conversation. If the conversation is to continue then Mr Kuhn can of course expand upon the rebuttals presented by Mr Coyne, but as best as I can determine, he has opted to not do so, and so that rebuttal stands as the end of that.

          So far the number of peer-reviewed papers presenting a reasonable evidence-based argument that gains traction and moves our overall understanding forward amounts to zero.

          You are of course free to criticise the prevailing body of scientific research, or if you prefer specific individual papers and that is fine.

          • Jimmy

            Nice try, the reason these do not gain traction is not because they do not make adequate claims, rather it is in fact due to the overwhelming bias. When Stephen Meyer published a peer-reviewed paper against Evolution, the editor of the journal was quite literally put on a witch hunt. He was even INTERROGATED on his religious beliefs.

            As for the response by, I believe you said his name was “Jerry Coyne”, I actually ended up reading both the peer-reviewed paper by Joseph and the response by Jerry. I was simply appauled by just how amazingly weak it was. Now, before I address its three points, I shall point out the fact that is did not come close to addressing all the points made by Joseph, rather it ambiguously responded to very little material in the paper on each point. Thus, on this basis alone, I can entirely dismiss it as a refutation of Joseph’s paper, but we can go further in showing just how ridiculous this response is.

            1. All Jerry addressed here was the DNA-Protein problem Joseph brought up, and claimed that the “co-evolutionary scenario” and RNA solution can bring this up. Indeed, that is all he said, extremely ambiguous to say the least, but I probably know why — if he was any more specific on these “solutions” to the DNA-Protein problem he mentioned, his viewers would laugh at this nonsense. The co-evolutionary scenario, which is if I’m not mistaken, the idea that DNA-Protein used to be the same thing but magically evolved apart, is extremely unrealistic, unscientific, and has not shown in the slightest degree to be feasible in any manner, whatsoever. This can HARDLY be posited as a solution. As for RNA, Joseph DOES address this.

            2. For irreducible complexity, Jerry tells us that Joseph gave us no examples of this — and then immediately contradicts himself by trying to address one of the examples Joseph gave involving the eye, LOL. What’s even better than that, is that Joseph EVEN ADDRESSES the supposed solution that is Jerry gave in that very paper, which is also commonly given by evolutionists to the problem, and so the fact that Jerry failed to address what was right before his eyes shows just how inadequate his comprehension of this paper was — either because he is stupid, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one, or that he is just so embarrassingly blinded by his bias and cognitive dissonance.

            3. Jerry claims that Joseph says there are outright “no examples of transitional fossils”, which is funny because I saw no such claim. On the supposedly transitional fossil of Tiktaalik, Jerry tries to attack Joseph for citing Casey Luskin. Now, I don’t know who Casey is, but I’m not going to have a bad impression on him because some biased twat doesn’t like him. Jerry claims that there was more than just the transitional wrist in the fossil of Tiktaalit, like a transitional skull, but what’s funny is tht I ended up reading the citation to Casey. Casey points out and shows, by going right to the peer-reviewed discovery and book published by Shubin on this, that there is in fact nothing transitional about this except for the supposed wrist and the hind fins as a “tetrapod”. The skull has no transitional features like Jerry claims. I also gained respect for Casey, as he utterly dismantled any hope, whatsoever for this being a transitional fish fossil of fish getting to land by utterly refuting a supposed wrist. Funnily enough, Casey points out that a lungfish has more of a “wrist” than Tiktaalik, and coincidentally, it has those SAME HIND FINS! LOL. Interestingly enough, the lungfish hasn’t become some mammal on land yet. Casey shows beyond question that if this is a transition of anything, it is towards a lungfish. Not land breathing tetrapods for goodness sake.

            Jerry has failed to postulate a substantiate response to this very, very good paper (that I saved after reading)… In other words… -Fail

            LOOOOOOOOOOOL

            • Dave Post author

              Hi Jimmy,

              Our comments are getting longer and longer …

              // overwhelming bias //

              So basically your position is that there is some sort of conspiracy or something similar?

              It perhaps unpacks to the observation that ID, or to be more specific, some of those that promote it, have more or less blown their credibility by promoting what is essentially a religious belief that pretends to be scientific.

              OK, back on point. The paper in question by Dr Kuhn, is not one that is rejected exclusively by Jerry Coyne, but in reality is rejected by almost every professional evolutionary biologist on the planet who has read it.

              For example …

              https://afarensis99.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/a-response-to-joseph-kuhns-dissecting-darwinism/

              http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/physicians-can-be-idiots.html

              http://stonesnbones.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/joseph-kuhn-md-part-1.html

              http://stonesnbones.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/joseph-kuhn-md-part-2.html

              Even Baylor University Medical Center, Dr Kuhn’s own medical centre where he published has a rebuttal for it as well …

              http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC%20Proceedings/2012%20Vol%2025/No.%201/25_1_Roberts_Commentary.pdf

              and here …

              http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC%20Proceedings/2012%20Vol%2025/No.%202/25_i2_Dimijian_bapr.pdf

              Clearly Dr Kuhn’s entire hypothesis gravitates around the long discredited idea of “Irreducible complexity”, and so he cherry picks a few things, gets rather mixed up along the way, and then tosses it all out as if it was some amazing revelation.

              I have it here, it really is not a good paper.

              I understand that you define it as a // very, very good paper // and I translate that to simply mean that it confirms your existing religious belief. I would define “good” as a paper that makes a meaningful contribution that extends our understanding and persuades. It most certainly does not do that, and instead contains rather a lot that is clearly wrong. It is understandable because Dr Kung is a medical doctor and is publishing in a medical journal on a topic he is not wholly familiar with.

              Now here is an interesting meta-question to ponder, the real heart of the matter.

              You clearly hold a specific view. If we together picked Dr Kuhn’s paper apart and proceeded to go though it line by line and it became clear to you that it really is nonsense, would that change your mind at all?

              I’m convinced that the honest answer to that would be “no”. This is because in my experience people who reject the prevailing scientific consensus, do so for deeply and sincerely felt emotional religious reasons, and not evidence-based scientific ones.

              There really is a reason why 99.9% of the life-science scientists on the planet today (many of whom are religious) do accept the prevailing consensus.

              • Jimmy

                Correct, it seems our comments are going to get quite lengthy. Would you like to move this conversation to e-mail? All up to you.

                As for the idea of a “conspiracy”, not really. These people are just ridiculously biased, that’s all. The evidence wouldn’t matter to them. I believe this is how you would view Kent Hovind. Now, imagine a Kent Hovind situated for Evolution, except there are thousands of them and they control most of the journals. I really do not think the existence of bias can be debated. If these people were not horrifyingly biased, they would not have literally witch hunted an editor for merely letting Meyer’s paper get published.

                Anyways, it seems to me that you did not contest my utter refutation of Coyne. I like that, perhaps you are not one of those evolutionist zombies who will deny any and everything. You accuse me of accepting this paper because it merely confirms my religious beliefs — this is incorrect, I used to be a Theistic Evolutionist. I will go back to this position if my worldview against evolution becomes incoherent, but I have very good reason as of now.

                As for all these links, certainly I will not be able to reply to all of them at once. Let’s address one at a time, starting from the first one. Now, I will only address the arguments made in response to the three points of Joseph’s paper, because as I go across your first link, it seems that the person replying wants to make paragraph-long responses to virtually every sentence Joseph makes, regardless if they are points he is/isn’t defending in the paper. The last thing before getting into my response, is the fact that this first link, now that I’ve finished going through it, actually does not dispute any of the three points Joseph argues and presents evidence for. What a pity.

                Now, the first and second paragraphs go hand in hand, as the author here quotes ‘transitional’ fossils like Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and the Neanderthals. Now, this is quite strange, as the author here (which you call a “professional” evolutionary biologist) does not seem to know that neanderthals are not a transition to humans. Indeed, I’m not aware of any serious biologists who think so, all evolutionary biologists agree we did not come from neanderthals, rather neanderthals were just some evolutionary dead-end. So this one obviously doesn’t show that humans evolved. As for homo habilis, first, I would strongly contest it is part of the “homo” genus, australopithecus is much, much better. It seems that the homo genus has become a dump for every time we find a new monkey in the dirt. Bernard Wood and Mark Collard greatly argue for this in the journal Science.
                http://science.sciencemag.org/content/284/5411/65.long

                The discovery of habilis, as documented by the people who discovered habilis, was extremely messy. Tons of fossils of poor condition were found, these could easily be of multiple hominid species, incorrectly assigned to habilis. What I have to say habilis is that our information lacks serious adequacy to rigorously test it in the scientific field, and thus we cannot determine with certainty that it is an ancestor of us. I don’t have much to say for erectus, as I don’t have one of those sparkling outright refutations for it. For Paranthropus (robustus), if I’m not mistaken, this also is not considered to be in the line to man (like neanderthals), and thus we didn’t come from them either. This is my critique of these examples, but amazingly enough, the guy starts giving more in his next paragraph, like australopithecus sediba. Now, here is a quote I found critiquing this one;

                A. sediba, critics are quick to point out, is everything that H. habilis is not: It’s a small-brained australopith living in southern Africa 2 million years ago — a good 300,000 years after the larger-brained H. habilis first appeared in East Africa. They say A. sediba is the wrong hominin in the wrong place at the wrong time to be our direct ancestor. “It’s just too young to lead to Homo,” says [paleoanthropologist Fred] Spoor.
                (Colin Barras, “The unexpected ape,” New Scientist, Issue 2925: 34-37 (July 13-19, 2013))

                If these ones at 2,000,000 years ago are too young to show any good evidence for this, then robustus, at 3,000,000 years ago is worse. I think I’m talking about these hominids a little too much.

                Continuing, he accuses Joseph of “creationist nonsense” for referencing stone tools that existed millions of years ago, because these are “outright fake”, but to defend Joseph, a quick search found me this;
                http://www.livescience.com/50908-oldest-stone-tools-predate-humans.html

                And to top it off, yet ANOTHER attack on Casey Luskin. These people seriously don’t like Casey. The author did not dispute Casey’s case against Tiktaalik, only laughed at Casey for not looking at the peer-review on this, even though that’s exactly what Casey addressed. Am I the only person in the world who has read Casey’s article on this?

                I’m not quite impressed by these responses. Allow me to add an opinion of mine to this — could it be that these people are trying to challenge Joseph’s paper — not because of its veracity — but perhaps because it contradicts their narrative? Just a thought. Feel free to comment on some of my responses to the author of this first link.

                • Glen

                  Because of a previous comment on this post I’ve been getting email notifications, I haven’t had time to throughly read each comment but I’m assuming it’s on a similar topic as the blog post itself and thought I would contribute an article which I came across last week, it’s on BioMed which is a “quality peer reviewed” biology journal. It’s a lengthy read but it’s basically saying that there isn’t enough time in the Universe for Evolution to do what it claims.

                  The BioMed paper: https://goo.gl/xKUHw8
                  There is a much easier to read summary of the paper here: http://goo.gl/G0mQ9G

                  This peer reviewed paper isn’t “intelligent design” but it does deal with a popular topic within the ID movement – the information in DNA. It’s conclusion is that the claims of Neo-Darwinism evolution aren’t possible given the age of the Universe. Any opposing view, peer reviewed article or whatever it may be needs to be judged on the merits of it’s science not what publication published it or otherwise.

                • Dave Post author

                  Couple of problems there Glen …

                  Key Point – If somebody is going to publish a paper that goes against the prevailing consensus then it needs to be good, really good, but its not, it really is not. It basically takes a very simplistic and unreal model, then plucks out sweeping claims. It has been published since 2015 and has been cited by … well nobody, except for one ID journal.

                  Secondary Point – It did get noticed by somebody and was found to not really be persuasive at all… http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/40845/do-the-claims-in-this-paper-have-any-degree-of-validity

                  Prediction: This bit of pseudoscience will continue to pop up on various ID sites as some sort of “proof” for years to come.

                  “Not enough time” is an old claim of course, and has been promoted from many a pulpit over the years. This latest paper simply attempts to give it a sciency look and feel. You can of course google the topic “not enough time” or similar and find much ID stuff and also many biologists rolling their eyes at it all with words. If truly curious then a 2010 PNAS paper on the topic can be found here. They also have a go at a mathematical model and find plenty of time – http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22454.full

                  (Side note: I’ll reply to Jimmy’s latest looooong comment later)

                • Dave Post author

                  Hi Jimmy,

                  We are seriously at risk of getting very bogged down in details here, so it may be appropriate to step back a bit. I have a few questions that might (or might not) help, but first I do wish to clarify my position.

                  Do I accept your rebuttal of the criticism by Jerry Coyne as valid? No, I honestly don’t, instead I simply widened the scope to point out that in the context of that one paper by Mr Kuhn, the issue is not criticism by one lone voice, but rather is wholesale rejection by the entire community, and that includes the journal that published the paper itself. To be clear, The publication, Proceedings of Baylor, are from Mr Kuhn’s employer, and so even his own employer rejects his stance.

                  To be a tad more specific regarding the comments you raised on Mr Coyne’s criticism … // utter refutation of Coyne // … “utter”, er no. And as an observation regarding a turn of phrase … //evolutionist zombies// … what was it you were saying about bias?

                  Regarding the three key points raised by Mr Coyne that basically address the three sections within Mr Kuhn’s paper …

                  1. Origin of Life … we really do not know. Nobody does. But, if I may paraphrase, all Kuhn is actually doing is playing the “gosh this is all really complex, I have no idea how this could have happened naturally, therefore ID” card, and that is not exactly a compelling argument for most biologists familiar with the topic at hand.

                  2. irreducible complexity is an interesting idea, but it has very much had its day, and no, the eye really is not a viable example.

                  3. transitional fossils … // Jerry claims that Joseph says there are outright “no examples of transitional fossils”, which is funny because I saw no such claim. // Having read it I did, because that is essentially what Mr Kuhn is attempting to assert within the section entitled “TRANSITIONAL SPECIES DATA”. It is basically a claim that there are none.

                  ——

                  We can of course continue to review such details, with various points and counter points, but I would like to suggest that this really will not persuade. It may be appropriate to step back a bit, so putting such details all to one side for the moment. I’d like, if I may, to ask you a couple of hopefully easy questions:

                  – You mentioned that your position was previously “Theistic Evolutionist”, so what category would you place yourself in currently?
                  – As an extension to your answer for the previous question, how did you arrive at that conclusion, what actually convinced you that it was the best possible answer over and above everything else?

          • Jimmy

            Before I address the points you make, I would like to answer the two questions you ask me first.

            As of right now, I am obviously still a Theist (Christian, as you may have guessed), but I do not hold to Evolution, rather Intelligent Design. I do affirm that the Earth is several billions of years old, and I strictly deny the idea that the Bible teaches a 6,000 year old Earth.

            As for the second question, I was initially convinced by realizing all supposed evidence for Evolution was either not viable, or is explained even better in our world by the Design Model. I can give you one example — and that is in respect to the evidence for Evolution from “vestigial traits”. People have said that some traits have lost their original function from Evolution, and because we have traits in our body that are useless, this shows this could only happen from Evolution. Unfortunately, virtually all examples they give of ‘vestigial traits’ have actual purposes in our body, including the coccyx (“tail” bone), palmarus longus (that tendon 14% of people don’t have in one of their arms), appendix, tonsils, pelvis in whales, etc, etc, etc. As medical science progresses, we will continually learning more about these traits and the myth of vestigial traits in our bodies will meet its slow demise.

            You do not accept my refutation of Coyne? That is quite strange, considering there is simply no question to me that Coyne’s “debunking” is entirely invalid, especially considering he completely ignored the bulk of arguments made by Joseph, he defended the eye from being irreducibly complex with an argument that Joseph addressed in that very paper, his claims on Tiktaalik was completely incorrect (of course Coyne wouldn’t have figured this out because he simply is not open enough to even consider Casey’s points), etc, etc, etc. You do however, respond to three of my points, and this is my response to all three points;

            1. It is true that we do not know how it “naturally” happened, I guess, but you are completely, completely incorrect on Joseph’s claims. He is not saying that it is complex, therefore it was created, rather Joseph puts forth evidence to show that it is far too complex to be accounted for by random mutations/natural selection, as such things simply could not produce what we find in our bodies.

            As for life appearing “naturally”, I would completely reject this possibility, based on Cell Theory, which we know to be as much of a fact as Germ Theory or the Theory of Relativity. Cell Theory makes three points;

            1) All living organisms are composed of cells. They may be unicellular or multicellular.
            2) The cell is the basic unit of life.
            3) Cells arise from pre-existing cells.

            http://biology.about.com/od/biologydictionary/g/celltheory.htm

            If cells can only arise from pre-existing cells, then abiotic materials simply could produce cells, and thus the cell had to be automatically created right from the start. It is as simple as that, it must have been designed. The Law of Biogenesis says similar things.

            2. The eye is not a viable example? I have seen many responses to it, including from Coyne and Dawkins, and I would entirely agree if I had not gone through this article of yours, but I did go through it. This led me to read Joseph’s paper, and as far as I am concerned, he has provided a legitimate response. I have no reason to doubt it, and thus I simply will not doubt it unless I am given good reason to. That’s science, baby.

            3. It would seem to me, rather than claiming that the record is quite literally bankrupt of what can possibly be called a ‘transitional fossil’, he is merely challenging the idea that the known “transitional” fossils are actually transitional in the first place, such as Tiktaalik.

            • Glen

              I’d like to add comment on the transitional fossil issue with Neo-Darwinism. We are probably all familiar with Darwin’s tree of life theory, where all living things we see today can be traced back to a common ancestor. Darwin was expecting for us to find in the fossil record gradual and continuous change. But instead what we see is the sudden appearance of new life forms, known as the Cambrian Explosion. So we have Darwin’s theory and then the facts (fossil record) which don’t support his theory. Darwin was even humble enough to admit that the fossil record didn’t support his theory but hoped that it would eventually with further exploration. There’s quite a good lecture Stephen Meyer did on this topic here:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcY9iya40o

              Dave, you’ve talked about the flu virus and how it mutates. The central mechanism of modern Darwinian evolution does a great job of explaining something such as the flu virus mutating and adapting to Antibiotics by the way of natural selection, random variation. Or microevolution within a species as it adapts to it’s environment. However it lacks the power to describe events like the Cambrian Explosion where we see the sudden appearance of new forms of life instead of the gradual and continuous change forming a “tree of life” which dates back hundreds of millions of years.

              Far too often the term “Natural Selection” is used, it’s like some kind of magic that happens which can create new things from very little, it’s not very scientific and certainly not proven. Which takes me all the way back to my very first comment on this post. Evolution theory has some interesting ideas, proven ones even with the Antibiotics example being a good one. But when it comes to dealing with the origin of the vast amount of species we have today Evolution’s account is not scientific fact, it’s pseudoscience.

              • Dave Post author

                Hi Glen, No the Cambrian explosion does not conflict with our modern understanding of evolutionary biology and no it was not a “sudden” appearance. The claim that evolution is a pseudoscience is not a factual claim, however it can be argued quite successfully that the claim that it is, is itself pseudoscience.

                Since you kindly cited Meyer’s clip, let me in turn cite an article that is a rebuttal of Mr Meyer’s stance.

                http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/341/6152/1344.1.full.pdf

            • Dave Post author

              Hi Jimmy,

              // there is simply no question to me that Coyne’s “debunking” is entirely invalid //

              And from my viewpoint, in all honestly, I find it to be wholly valid.

              So back to the point I made, that basically the essence of the claim being made in Point 1 is this …

              “gosh this is all really complex, I have no idea how this could have happened naturally, therefore ID”

              To which you replied …

              // He is not saying that it is complex, therefore it was created, //

              But then expanded and explained …

              //rather Joseph puts forth evidence to show that it is far too complex to be accounted for by random mutations/natural selection, as such things simply could not produce what we find in our bodies. //

              And then rather oddly, you proceed to make exactly the same claim yourself …

              // As for life appearing “naturally”, I would completely reject this possibility, based on Cell Theory, which we know to be as much of a fact as Germ Theory or the Theory of Relativity. Cell Theory makes three points; //

              Do you not see the problem with a claim that is in essence, exactly as I described it …
              “this is really complex”
              “I have no idea how it could have happened naturally hence I reject that as a possibility”
              “Therefore a god must have done it”

              Can you try to grasp why this plea to not knowing something is not an argument that tends to convince skeptics such as myself.

              I suspect we will not agree on this, and if that is to be the case, then so be it.

              I would like to thank you for answering my questions, I do appreciate that, and I would like to add the observation that it is good to see that there are some things that we do agree upon. For example we do both agree regarding the age of the earth as advocated by geological science is fundamentally correct.

              • Jimmy

                Something that is troubling me is that you continue to latch on to Coyne’s claims, however I have pointed out numerous problems that you are not seeming to try to recognize. Before I respond to your accusations that makes it seem as if I contradicted myself, I will number out the problems I shown in Coyne’s response.

                1. Probably the biggest point is, yet again, Coyne simply did not address the bulk of Joseph’s argument in all three of the point in Joseph’s paper. Thus, to say it debunked the entire thing when in reality it only addresses a minority of the points is, on its face, nonsensical.

                2. Coyne issued an “explanation” for the irreducible complexity of the eye, that Jodeph in the very paper that Coyne was responding to, had already shown problems with this explanation

                3. Coyne gets the discovery on Tiktaalik entirely wrong, and he would have realized this if he merely read Casey’s points

                4. To try to solve the DNA-Protein problem, Coyne (extremely) ambiguously mentions the “co-evolutionary scenario”, which is the idea that DNA and Protein were once the same thing, and they magically separated. This hypothesis is unscientific, unrealistic, and has absolutely zero scientific validation. He also accused Kuhn of not engaging with the RNA explanation, even though he did (dare I say this qualifies as a misrepresentation of Joseph)

                Considering these incredible problems and errors that are simply all over Coyne’s response, I would simply like to ask you which part of his argument you were actually convinced by, taking into account seeing my points on it. This is an enigma to me as of now.

                Now, on to my supposed contradiction. First, I explain Joseph is simply not saying “this is complex therefore design”, I correctly pointed out he said that it is too complex to be explained by mutations and natural delection. However, your problem seems to be when I added in my view on it. You clearly just recognize that my points against life from non-life are not actually in Joseph’s paper, simply because I said it in my last comment, does not mean it is part of Joseph’s paper.

                Furthermore, this is an errorful analogy, as I did not invoke creation because of “oh my just wow this is so complex”, my argument was based on the implication of Cell Theory and the Law of Biogenesis.

                2 more quick things to add:

                1. Are you a biologist?
                2. I actually found Joseph’s response to these critics… But what was most funny is that… It was on CASEY LUSKIN’S WEBSITE, LOL. This entire thing is certainly hilarious as I go through the discourse on Joseph. Anyways, I went through the entire thing, and I found it highly impressive, and so I’ll ask you to check it out for yourself.

                http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/darwin-doubting059241.html

                • Dave Post author

                  So here you go then Jimmy, a reply. Some of us do have a life and tend not to spend our entire life on the Internet.

                  // you continue to latch on to Coyne’s claims //

                  You keep dismissing them as if it was a done deal, I quite sincerely do not find that to be the case.

                  // I have pointed out numerous problems that you are not seeming to try to recognize. //

                  Because they are not actually problems at all.

                  // I will number out the problems I shown in Coyne’s response. //

                  OK, let’s take it step by step

                  // 1. Probably the biggest point is, yet again, Coyne simply did not address the bulk of Joseph’s argument in all three of the point in Joseph’s paper. Thus, to say it debunked the entire thing when in reality it only addresses a minority of the points is, on its face, nonsensical. //

                  Mr Kuhn lays out 3 arguments within his paper and Mr Coyne highlights all three. It is true that he does not dissect each and every line of detail, but you are missing the big picture here, the three primary arguments are not actually credible arguments at all. Nothing Mr Kuhn writes changes that in any meaningful way.

                  Section 1 (CHEMICAL ORIGIN OF LIFE) … the “Gosh it is all really complex” section that is a plea to ignorance. As I already pointed out, nobody really knows.
                  Section 2 (IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF CELLULAR SYSTEMS) … not science but pseudoscience, and well documented as such … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
                  Section 3 (TRANSITIONAL SPECIES DATA) … there are lots of examples … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

                  Mr Coyne simply highlights that these three non-viable arguments are all that the paper contains, there is no need to go any further because these are not (in the eyes of the wider community) credible. If for example a paper on astrology popped up that seriously advocated that the movement of the planets influenced human lives, then simply highlighting that this is all it actually says is sufficient, there would be no need to dig into a claimed correlation between the interactions of Venus and Mars with real human lives.

                  I get that you are all excited by Mr Kuhn’s paper and truly think it is super stuff, but it really is just those three tired old arguments that have not convinced anybody.

                  // 2. Coyne issued an “explanation” for the irreducible complexity of the eye, that Jodeph in the very paper that Coyne was responding to, had already shown problems with this explanation //

                  The evolution of the eye is a topic that has been extensively studied and is well documented by many. As for Mr Coyne not addressing Mr Kuhn’s “irreducible complexity” argument about the need for a pre-existing complex system for even the most primitive form of an eye to function, you did get that he is mocking him for attempting to support an absurd bit of pseudoscientific nonsense.

                  My Kuhn also claims “many other mathematical and logistical weaknesses to the Nilsson example of eye evolution have been uncovered”, and cites Berlinski as a rebuttal to Nilsson … but Nilsson has in turn robustly rebutted Mr Berlinski’s criticism. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm#lund

                  // 3. Coyne gets the discovery on Tiktaalik entirely wrong, and he would have realized this if he merely read Casey’s points //

                  Actually no, it is both Mr Kuhn and Mr Luskin who do that. The claim that everything is based upon the discovery of just one wrist bone is not factual.

                  Since Mr Kuhn cites Mr Luskin as an authority, it is worth asking who he is and if he actually is a credible source?

                  No, he is not, people appears to spend rather a lot of time laughing at Mr Luskin …

                  http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/casey-luskin-em.html

                  http://stifledmind.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/luskins-wrist-rant-leave-it-to-experts.html

                  .. and in fact Mr Luskin is very embarrassingly wrong …

                  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/07/14/746/#.V7muImWdvOw

                  So no, he is really not a reliable source for anything (except perhaps law because that is his area, he is a Lawyer, not a biologist).

                  // 4. To try to solve the DNA-Protein problem, Coyne (extremely) ambiguously mentions the “co-evolutionary scenario”, which is the idea that DNA and Protein were once the same thing, and they magically separated. This hypothesis is unscientific, unrealistic, and has absolutely zero scientific validation. //

                  He does not “try to solve it”, he simply pointed out that it was not mentioned at all.

                  As an aside, you might indeed claim it is “unscientific, unrealistic, and has absolutely zero scientific validation”, but that does not make it so.

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

                  However, as I previously pointed out, right now nobody actually knows how life originated … yet.

                  // He also accused Kuhn of not engaging with the RNA explanation, even though he did (dare I say this qualifies as a misrepresentation of Joseph) //

                  His precise phrase was “The co-evolutionary scenario, and involvement of RNA in this, isn’t mentioned” … so is it, and if so, then exactly where is that? Dare I say that you are actually misrepresenting Mr Coyne.

                  // I did not invoke creation because of “oh my just wow this is so complex”, my argument was based on the implication of Cell Theory and the Law of Biogenesis. //

                  Now you are simply playing with words … what you claim as “the implication of Cell Theory and the Law of Biogenesis” really does translate to “Gosh, this is all very complex, so I simply cannot see any possible solution except for creation as an explanation” … right?

                  So, apart from those who already embrace one of the vast diversity of different Creationist beliefs that are essentially rooted within some variation of religious belief, who exactly is being persuaded by Mr Kung’s paper?

                  The point is not that I don’t, nor is it that Mr Coyne does not … the key observation is that apart from those that already believe (it has just one citation from a creationist), nobody does, not even the medical journal that it was published within (as previously highlighted, they had a rebuttal)

                  Given the observation that nobody is being persuaded by this paper, why do you think that is the case?

                  In anticipation that you will claim that some bias is at play, I will perhaps point out that you are in essence arguing for what is a fringe position that is inspired by a religious belief (and that is the real bias in play here). If the ID stance being adopted was indeed correct, then the implication is that the vast majority of life-science scientists, many of whom are themselves religious, are being both foolish, deluded, and unthinking … is that really your position?

                  You appear to have an almost evangelistic need to convince others that your position is correct and went as far as chasing me twice for a reply to your comment. My thoughts and your thoughts on the topic are in reality irrelevant. This is because the scientific methodology will prevail. What is true will remain true even if we both dismissed fact as myth, and embraced myth as fact.

                  You sincerely believe specific things that conflict with the evidence-based prevailing consensus … I get that, and that is fine.

                  You sincerely believe you have evidence on your side and that the prevailing consensus does not … I get that, and that is also fine if that is what you wish.

                  However, wishing it to be so and sincerely believing it to be so, will not make it so. Remember, it is not me that you need to convince, it is the entire life-science community consisting of millions of highly educated scientists. Good luck with that.

                • Jimmy

                  —I apologize in advance for the long response — you just made a LOOOT of points

                  //Some of us do have a life and tend not to spend our entire life on the Internet.//

                  I didn’t mean to say you have no life dude.

                  Let’s get right into your response now. Now, my statement was not just that Coyne didn’t address every detail, my point was that on all three of Joseph’s points, he addressed the minor detail rather than the main argument. Coyne did not address even nearly half of Joseph’s points.

                  Again, for the first point, as I explained, it is very clearly not “gosh this is really complex”, what Joseph is actually arguing for that the biodiversity and origins of life simply cannot be accounted for by mutations and natural selection. For the second point, you call Irreducible Complexity as ‘pseudoscience’, and to demonstrate this, you cite a source that is renowned across the world for its credibility, Wikipedia. I’ve already been through this link before, and it invalid. Let us analyze its response to both the complexity of the eye and the bacterial flagellum.

                  For the eye, it does exactly what Coyne tried. Provide an explanation for the evolution of the eye that Joseph rebutted in his very paper. Joseph already addresses this. As for the bacterial flagellum, it merely propagates Kenneth Miller’s pseudoscience of the TS3 (Type 3 Secretory System) being a precursor to the Bacterial Flagellum. The fact is, the TS3 is both completely dissimilar to the bacterial flagellum, not only in function, but the basal (base) of the Bacterial Flagellum also is different from the TS3, regardless of the nonsense Kenneth tells us. A 2011 paper, by Schraidt and Marlovits, in Science Magazine, found that the OM ring of a TS3 is comprised of a C-terminal region of secretins, with a 15-fold symmetry. The bacterial flagellum, on the other hand, has OM rings that are comprised of completely different proteins, lipoprotein FlgH, as well as containing an L (lipopolysaccharide) ring in the OM. The L ring is associated with a periplasmic P ring, which is composed of 26 copies of Flgl. Together, the L and P rings form a stiff structure that serves as a bushing for the rotating rod of the flagellar. The TS3 has nothing similar to the above, nor does it have a proton-drive motor which is capable of spinning the filament (90% of the flagellum’s mass) at over 40,000rpm. 

                  Here’s the paper I was talking about:
                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21385715

                  There are also other facts that entirely dismiss such a notion is even possible. One is that the bacterial flagellum actually predates the TS3, and so being a precursor is out of the picture. In a lecture, Scott Minnich completely disavows any possibility for this to be a serious precursor, as well as establishes the Irreducible Complexity for the bacterial flagellum in a number of ways, such as proving if you mutate any gene of the FihD protein of the bacterial flagellum, it loses complete motility. Here is the lecture, I highly recommend it.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvZniAnYJrQ

                  Now, you say Nilsson offers a response to Berlinski — but Berlinski has a response to this response and many other attempted responses to his claims.
                  http://www.discovery.org/a/1509

                  You say that Tiktaalik is not only the wrist — however, it seems we have a misunderstanding here. The only feature is the wrist, the rest of the claims are of homology, which is scattered across our biological world and used by the evolutionists, even Darwin himself, as evidence for common ancestry. However, as Jonathan Wells points out, people before Darwin had recognized this ‘homology’, however they did not attribute it to a common ancestor, rather a common designer. So, which one is it? Well, the truth is, it could be either one, but any claims of homology cannot be used for one side against the other, as they work perfectly well with both.

                  Now, you give three links to show Casey Luskin is “embarrassingly” wrong about Tiktaalik. I disagree. The entire first link simply adds up to “no Casey, we don’t say Tiktaalik is our direct ancestor, rather just cousin to our ancestors”. Err, whether that’s true or not, it doesn’t respond to a THING Casey made in his actual arguments. The other two links basically say “no Casey, the Tiktaalik wrist is similar to ours (homology) as it is a transition between fish to us”, and again, not addressing his argument that it isn’t transitional in the first place. Casey shows that modern day zebrafish have wrists more similar to us than Tiktaalik does. I think this point that Casey made is really where Tiktaalik just falls apart here. You also say he is just a lawyer and not a biologist, but he actually has an M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California.
                  http://www.discovery.org/p/188

                  You also disagree with me that the co-evolutionary scenario, as Coyne puts it, is not simply entirely scientifically invalid, and cite a paper to show this, but your paper does not argue for this scenario (just read the summary bro), it simply shows, and I quote, data has “revealed that several of these enzymatic activities have been invented independently more than once, indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought”. In other words, it shows that the origins of life is more complex than previously assumed. The summary goes on to call the entire thing “puzzling”. It reviews many hypotheses but I do not think it mentions the co-evolutionary scenario, nor validates it. It mostly tries to show that viruses could have been very important in the grand idea of these origins. Again, the co-evolutionary scenario, if anything we’ve discussed yet, is pure pseudoscience. It’s also suicide for anyone who wants to claim that life can come from non-life, as now you must also explain how some mechanism that played the role of both DNA protein immediately came from non-life before splitting off, which is ten thousand times more problematic than how it’s already looking for those guys.

                  You say the following:

                  “Now you are simply playing with words … what you claim as “the implication of Cell Theory and the Law of Biogenesis” really does translate to “Gosh, this is all very complex, so I simply cannot see any possible solution except for creation as an explanation” … right?”

                  Not right. This has nothing to do with complexity. Unless I’m missing some super secret rule of Cell Theory or the Law of Biogenesis, they outright rule out the production of cells from not only anything abiotic, but also anything other than cells in the first place on a naturalistic basis. You also say that my position states life-scientists are foolish, deluded, and unthinking. No, they’ve just been tricked by the evolutionists to pursue a false hope of life from non-life. Many intelligent people who are not foolish, deluded, and unthinking, chase false hopes. Newton spent decades trying to invent alchemy. He was definitely not foolish, unthinking, or deluded. Someone just tricked him into following a false hope.

  • Glen

    “Evolution as a well-established scientific fact.” I thought it was still a theory? In which case, I’ve missed some key discoveries. So my first question would be; what is the scientific explanation for the missing fossils and how do they fit with neo-Darwinism?

    • Dave Post author

      I’d highly recommend googling the term “Scientific Theory” … here let me google that for you … (From the Wikipedia Page, the 1st para) …

      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

      • Glen

        Hi Dave, this is the issue I’m facing as so far it appears evolution can’t be tested or observed and there is little to no “well-substantiated” evidence for it. Therefore it isn’t scientific fact, it’s still a theory or pseudoscience.

        However, since it’s been 150 or so years since Darwin first penned his theory we might have some “well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world” that can help support his theory. I think the fossil record is a good place to start.

        Darwin assumed that the missing fossils would eventually be unearthed. By “missing” I mean transformational fossils which would show each gradual step in the evolutionary process of each species leading back to the original single cell organisms he claims all life started from. But so far they haven’t been found. I’m trying to get answers to this basic question first because it’s key to neo-Darwinism. Without the fossil’s Darwin’s theory falls apart.

        • Dave Post author

          It may be appropriate to find out if we use the same words to describe different things, so with that thought in mind, what do you think that the theory of evolution is? If asked to describe it in a few words, how would you do so?

            • Dave Post author

              OK good start.So to break it down to very simple terms … we have variation and we have natural selection.
              – You are not a clone of your parents, that is variation
              – If you have brothers and sisters, then when compared to each other you will appreciate that some do better than others within the context in which you find yourselves … that is natural selection

              I suspect you have also personally experienced evolution in the sense that the flu virus mutates, hence the need to get regular flu shots. The flu shot might or might not work, it depends … if the variation of flu has mutated beyond the ability of the vaccine to handle they it will not work Each season we play catch-up. Perhaps another example is the deployment of Antibiotics. We are basically in deep trouble here because bacteria have evolved antibiotic resistant strains and our ability to deploy antibiotics that are as effective as they once were is a growing issue of extreme concern.

              When it comes to evolution, there is a prevailing consensus and so generally the only people who challenge it tend to do so for religious reasons. Often the basis is one where you start with a conclusion and then work backwards looking for anything that can confirm that conclusion (science tends to work the other way around).

              If curious to delve into the topic in more detail, then I can recommend simply googling “Evidence for evolution”. The Berkley 101 site is good and covers it all quite well. Another alternative is the book “Why evolution is true”.

              Best Regards,

              Dave

              • Jimmy

                Are you going to be replying to my comment anytime soon? If you missed it, I will copy and paste it for you.

                Something that is troubling me is that you continue to latch on to Coyne’s claims, however I have pointed out numerous problems that you are not seeming to try to recognize. Before I respond to your accusations that makes it seem as if I contradicted myself, I will number out the problems I shown in Coyne’s response.

                1. Probably the biggest point is, yet again, Coyne simply did not address the bulk of Joseph’s argument in all three of the point in Joseph’s paper. Thus, to say it debunked the entire thing when in reality it only addresses a minority of the points is, on its face, nonsensical.

                2. Coyne issued an “explanation” for the irreducible complexity of the eye, that Jodeph in the very paper that Coyne was responding to, had already shown problems with this explanation

                3. Coyne gets the discovery on Tiktaalik entirely wrong, and he would have realized this if he merely read Casey’s points

                4. To try to solve the DNA-Protein problem, Coyne (extremely) ambiguously mentions the “co-evolutionary scenario”, which is the idea that DNA and Protein were once the same thing, and they magically separated. This hypothesis is unscientific, unrealistic, and has absolutely zero scientific validation. He also accused Kuhn of not engaging with the RNA explanation, even though he did (dare I say this qualifies as a misrepresentation of Joseph)

                Considering these incredible problems and errors that are simply all over Coyne’s response, I would simply like to ask you which part of his argument you were actually convinced by, taking into account seeing my points on it. This is an enigma to me as of now.

                Now, on to my supposed contradiction. First, I explain Joseph is simply not saying “this is complex therefore design”, I correctly pointed out he said that it is too complex to be explained by mutations and natural delection. However, your problem seems to be when I added in my view on it. You clearly just recognize that my points against life from non-life are not actually in Joseph’s paper, simply because I said it in my last comment, does not mean it is part of Joseph’s paper.

                Furthermore, this is an errorful analogy, as I did not invoke creation because of “oh my just wow this is so complex”, my argument was based on the implication of Cell Theory and the Law of Biogenesis.

                2 more quick things to add:

                1. Are you a biologist?
                2. I actually found Joseph’s response to these critics… But what was most funny is that… It was on CASEY LUSKIN’S WEBSITE, LOL. This entire thing is certainly hilarious as I go through the discourse on Joseph. Anyways, I went through the entire thing, and I found it highly impressive, and so I’ll ask you to check it out for yourself.

                http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/darwin-doubting059241.html

  • Hoax Busters Call

    “Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals”…

    “That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish’ and `reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back `How do you know I haven’t already done it?”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

    LOL!

  • herrmann

    Do they not know that the Peer review process has only been a touchstone of the modern scientific method since the middle of the 20th century.

    Peer Review History

    The first recorded editorial pre-publication peer-review process was at the Royal Society of London in 1665 by the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg.[9][10][11] In the 20th century, peer review became common for science funding allocations. This process appears to have developed independently from that of editorial peer review.[12] See a competing understanding of the history of peer review using a scientific approach in Gaudet [13], that builds on historical research by Gould [14], Biagioli [15], Spier [16], and Rip [17]. Using a scientific approach means carefully tending to what is under investigation, here peer review, and not only looking at superficial or self-evident commonalities among inquisition, censorship, and journal peer review.

    The first peer-reviewed publication might have been the Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process.[18]

    still you guys are a bunch of lying assholes ! periode!

  • Alicia LeMarie

    For years evolutionists have been screaming for Peer Reviewed Literature whenever researchers with alternative interpretations presented their conclusions. Now that many papers have come forth, evolutionists are screaming that “they don’t count”. How outrageous and ridiculous! Really, it’s sad.

    • Dave Gamble Post author

      Feel free to pick the one you feel is the very best example of a peer-reviewed paper that supports intelligent design using actual data and explain why it is not a fail and is actually credible.

      • Nick Singh

        Sadly people in the US have not accepted the bullshit pseudoscience of evolution???? you know, this theory has plenty of holes. for you to call this nonsense science just shows how devilishly dishonest you people are. let the damn science work it out. no need to jump to conclusions.

        • Dave Gamble Post author

          I do have to ask Nick, given the observation that the OP article examines all the claims to peer-reviewed evidence and ends up with nothing left, then where exactly are these “plenty of holes”?

          Can you even point to one single published peer-reviewed paper in a credible science journal that identifies these holes – if they existed that there should at least be one, but there is none at all, so why is that the case?

  • Joel Stapley

    thorough? yes. accurate? no.

    there is no evidence for evolution. no fossil records or examples of any kind to explain the macro evolution that those who hold the religious view of evolutionism suggest exist.