Vorkosigan

TIME: DAY 2 of the Vanderzyden Watch.

BACKGROUND SCENE: The lush grasslands of the Evolution/Creation forum.

FOREGROUND: A wizened old man stirs a fire. He mutters to himself:

• "Don't worry. He's a-comin', he's a-comin..."

FADE TO COMMERCIAL

Automaton

Note that you have not attempted the actual challenge, you have merely been dishonest and brushed it aside by pointing out "problems" with selective and out-of-context quotes.
Do you know anything at all about science, or do you just like to repeat buzz-words the ID-ologists have fed you ("naturalistic worldview", "Darwinian school", etc.)? In science, we have such a thing called a hypothesis:

• A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

In otherwords, an educated guess, which is then to be tested. In context, the quoted paragraph states that a predictive evolutionary hypothesis was postulated, and subsequently confirmed. Thus why are you complaining about "lack of supporting evidence", when that is precisely what the article attempts to do. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to actually address the apparrent evidence, rather than simply stating that no such thing was provided.
How amusing, you attack the scientist's methodology and motivation without even attempting to find out what that methodology was. And how deliciously hypocritical, considering what else is the ID movement fueled by, but satisfying the pre-conceived dogmas of religious believers, no matter how much they try to hide this fact. In science we have this thing called parsimony, either:

• By some fantastic coincidence that would be ming-bogglingly low on the probability scale, or by some totally unknown or unknowable mechanism, the chromosomal phylogeny happens to exactly match the predicted evolutionary pattern.
  
  Or:
• The chromosomal phylogeny matches the predicted evolutionary pattern because the predicted evolutionary pattern actually happened.

Now which do you think carries the most scientific weight? Or maybe your dogma is getting in the way of your thought-processes...
If you knew anything about biology you would not be asking this. Look <a href="http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e11/11d.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.
This presumption would be wrong.
This is not a response, but an irrelevent evasion. Stop preaching about our "dogmas" or "biases" or whatever hypocritical label you wish to give followers of legitamite scientific enquiry, and address the actual points provided to you! This is a case of making a predictive hypothesis and confirming that hypothesis with evidence. If you want to think that's fitting facts to theory then fine, but that's how science works. If the facts fit a theory it is accepted, if facts do not fit a theory, the theory is rejected.

Now how about actually showing how either the facts don't actually support the hypothesis, or how the facts themselves were misinterpreted. Then, you would have actually responded, rather than merely rhetoricizing.
Adaptation of populations of organisms through natural selection and mutation. Now cut out the irrelevent distractions and answer the challenge.
Another misunderstanding of the way science works... When Newtonian gravitational mechanics were falsified due to observations of Mercury's orbit, and other facts, it was not simply completely thrown away, because it still had descriptive power. Only until something better came along, relativistic gravitational mechanics, was it able to be chucked. And even classical relativity is soon to be thrown out due to its inability to explain quantum effects, but not until we have found a better theory.
Irreducible complexity is a total sham. It demands that since biochemical systems cannot be broken down on a non-evolutionary level without detrimental effects to the organism, that therefore on an evolutionary level it cannot be broken down. The fallacy of this is obvious. Evolution is not the clumping together of LEGO's, it is adaptation of previously existing forms. Functions change, interactions stengthen, greater redudancy is taken away until only essential parts are left, etc., etc.
What is biological information? Why can't the theory of evolution explain it?
Why not?
This is preposterous. Science, by definition does not address metaphysical questions. Science is the study of the natural world.
Why is perceptive knowledge different to empirical knowledge? It is intuitively true to some that little green men in UFO's have abducted them. Is this now actually true?
Just like the "authoritative knowledge" found in the Koran? Get this through your head, something does not become true just because someone says it is true. In this sense, your "authoritative knowledge" is a contradiction in terms.
Yes, especially all those devout Christian Darwinists like Kenneth Miller.
Science is BY DEFINITION the acquisiion of empirical knowledge!
Why, because your religious bias dogma forces you to! (See, it isn't nice. So cut it out.)
Huh? Then what were we just talking about?
Such is claimed, but never produced.
You're seeing what you want to see. There are no "emotional outbursts" to this effect, as far as I am aware.
Yeah... Great.
Why don't you start by first responding to this one!

Starr

I wouldn't hold your breath. From watching posts Vander has made, or joined in on, I've realized that he just stops responding as soon as his position has been logically debunked. He's not interested in real debate.

Blinn

Welcome to II Starr! Feel free to introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">here</a>. I see you're from the UP. Beatiful country you've got up there. I went through Houghton a few years ago on my way over to Isle Royale. Again, welcome.
Cheers.

Skeptical

I was using a little hyperbole regarding the use of the term "Darwinist" for, let's say, dramatic effect.

However, my personal opinion is that to call someone a "Darwinist" is like calling someone a "buddhist" or a "christian", it makes someone appear as an apostle or blind follower of some leader or figure. Scientists don't follow people, they follow theories with solid data. The use of words such as this by the YEC's and IDers is nothing more than an attempt to try and make an un-stated argument that people who believe in evolutionary theory only do so because they revere Darwin. This is plainly not true. While some people no doubt do revere Darwin, it's completely irrelevant to the data collected.

Since the YEC's tend to try and use the word as a foil, and since there have been many, many advances in evolutionary theory since Darwins day, I find the use of the term non-descriptive, anachronistic and confusing to the layman.

We cannot allow fundies and YEC's to define the terms of debate. They are fond of appropriating terms and using fuzzy definitions and logic to make it appear that they actually have an argument when they do not. If we must use a term, I think "evolutionist" is much better, although still not completely accurate. The problem is that people are conditioned, at least in America, to the 5 second sound bite. If you can't simplify your argument into bite sized portions you tend to lose in the court of public opinion, so we must "dumb it down" to a certain extent. There are still area of America where schools teter on the edge of allowing creationism into the classroom, so this is not just a dry academic debate but an important battle over social policy.

Ok, I'm stepping off the soap box now.

BTW, Vander, are you out there?

Skeptical

ROTFLMAO!!!!

It's the pebbles you see, it's the pebbles!!! How could we have been so blind! Forget about all of that radiometric dating nonsense, it's all in the pebbles!

I am sooooo tempted to splurge the $9.99 to get their take on the Pyramids and the Dinosaurs, it's probably worth it for the entertainment value alone.

Vanderzyden

I am amused. Seriously, some of the stuff that is posted here is hilariously. Other posts, such as those by CRBullDog, are worth a substantial reply. Such responses even merit one of these: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> But, alas, they are very rare (Sigh)...

What is particularly amazing is the tone taken by those who post such "challenges." (I am picturing a pack of carnivores, drolling profusely, giggling, and ready to pounce.) Very likely, the thinking of many of you people is "we've got 'em stumped." Well, I wouldn't be so cocky. A reply is forthcoming that will address the technical aspects of this proposal. (It is just a proposal, ya' know, not an irrefutable challenge. Nothing earthshakin')

In the interim, I am posting another thread "The utility of evolution: what good is it?"

This is a topic of much greater importance than this "challenge." Have a look, if you please.

TooBad

Perish the thought, Vanderzyden.

Mageth

This is a topic of much greater importance than this "challenge."

Appartently, to you, emotional appeals trump evidence.

Skeptical

I await with eager anticipation your _technical_ reply. I hope when you respond this time you eliminate quote mining and you understand the difference between a pre-data speculation and a post-data confirmation. I also hope you avoid your tendency to gloss, dance and skirt the question at hand.

BTW, it's not just a "proposal". It is a fact that the G-bands match. It is a fact that humans have 23 chromosomes and the great apes 24. It is a fact that to explain the discrepancy between what were believed to be common ancestors, certain predictions were made regarding what we would find when we looked at the chromosomes. It is a fact that what was predicted was found. These are not "proposals". Your challenge is to show that all of these facts do not lead to the inevitable conclusion of common ancestry. Since no one has ever been able to do so, it would be considerably impressive if you could.

Take your time. I for one am prepared to wait as long as necessary for your response.