Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

This is something that's been bugging me for a while. How could you tell if someone meddled with evolution, or even started it, if the action occurred at such a time that the results would be in pretty much every strand of DNA.

I'm not sure how you could tell - someone who would claim to know the mind of God (or leprechauns or flying spaghetti monsters...) might have more of on idea I guess...

But inspecting the most promising scientific idea we have right now: 'How would we PROVE abiogenesis occurred?'

Well, I think the most convincing 'proof' of that (from my point of view at least) would be to inspect other planets for signs of life. And assuming we were to find life on other planets, it should reasonably match the probabilities predicted by an 'abiogenesis theory'.

If this turned out to be so, a theist could argue that God just 'happened' to place life on planets at a ratio that just 'happened' to match the abiogenesis theory, but I don't think many scientists would take that kind of argument seriously.

Inspecting planets for life is still a science in relative infancy though. The distances are vast. Progress is being made, but we might be waiting a while before we can start (confidently) starting the 'hit vs. miss' count...

I think it will start to happen - I just have no idea when....

Abiogenesis could also be reproduced in a lab, but I think an easy (and somewhat valid) counter-point would be that: "Well yes - you reproduced it in a lab. That means there was some 'intelligent prodding' involved...'. It would be good, strong evidence though - and probably good enough for many...

[thesometimesaint]

Here is an interesting read. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-religion-adaptive

[The Dude]

I don't want to get into a huge discussion, but I did have a question.

If someone/something (God, space aliens, giant spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, intelligent quarks...whatever, I don't care and it's not important to me or the question I'm asking) did meddle with the earth early on - and we're talking the very beginnings of the rise of protein chains here, or earlier - thereby assisting either the creation of DNA or pushing DNA in a direction that led to the rise of life (as we know it), how would we be able to tell? That is, how would we distinguish it from pure 'natural' occurrence?

This is something that's been bugging me for a while. How could you tell if someone meddled with evolution, or even started it, if the action occurred at such a time that the results would be in pretty much every strand of DNA.

(This is not an argument FOR or AGAINST. It is a QUESTION. Thank you in advance.)

ID proponents would say that you can't tell the difference because there is no difference. If DNA looks designed then it was designed: end of discussion.

Ah, where is Log when we need him to demonstrate this argument?

[BCSpace]

I don't see why evolutionary results can't be by design. Not that God intervenes now and again in the process (a possibility) but that by setting the initial conditions, one can manipulate the outcome. God might have seeded the worlds with His DNA. In that case, the Greek mythology of how Gaia and Uranus populated the world might be based on some long lost knowledge had by the ancients.

[chonguey]

I don't see why evolutionary results can't be by design. Not that God intervenes now and again in the process (a possibility) but that by setting the initial conditions, one can manipulate the outcome.

Because that is a contradiction of the term "evolution" as understood by the scientific community. There is no such concept in science as Evolution via Supernatural Direction.

When scientists (and Darwin) use the term "Evolution" it is implied that it is a naturally occurring, undirected process with no predetermined purpose or agenda (other than increased chance of survival). Natural pressures that exist in the environment, random mutations, and natural selection are the forces that drive biological evolution. By definition, it is a process that occurs through purely natural means.

Many LDS will say they believe that God "directed" evolution, planned the results in advance or magically manipulated DNA at the right time to push the results in a certain direction. To add any sort of component of "supernatural" direction is to automatically be talking about something other than Evolution via Natural Selection. In other words, the non-scientific religious philosophy of Intelligent Design.

Evolution that is guided by some intelligent force is by definition NOT "Evolution". It is a blatant contradiction in terms.

Also, because of the reality of Chaos it is self evidently impossible for evolution to have had its initial conditions set with a specific outcome in mind. The infinite sensitivity to initial conditions that exist in life and environmental niches rule out the possibility that a predetermined outcome could be engineered even by the most powerful and omniscient of beings. If evolution on earth were to be "rebooted" and rerun from the start it is almost assured that the resulting organisms and species would NOT be the same we have today. Humans (as we exist today) would almost assuredly NOT be the result.

One is free to believe that God manipulated biological organisms for His own purposes, but let's be clear: You can not validly describe such a belief as "evolution." The two concepts are diametrically opposed.

[HiJolly]

When scientists (and Darwin) use the term "Evolution" it is implied that it is a naturally occurring, undirected process with no predetermined purpose or agenda (other than increased chance of survival). Natural pressures that exist in the environment, random mutations, and natural selection are the forces that drive biological evolution. By definition, it is a process that occurs through purely natural means.

One is free to believe that God manipulated biological organisms for His own purposes, but let's be clear: You can not validly describe such a belief as "evolution." The two concepts are diametrically opposed.

I have read "Origin of Species". Darwin never states that God is not a part of the process. Indeed, he seems to leave God's involvement open as a possibility. Sure, that's not science, but that's the way Darwin wrote the book.

I think you've done him a disservice.

HiJolly

[Rincewind]

I guess you wouldn't. You pick the simplest theory that has good explanitory power and see where it takes you conceptually and evidentially.

If I look outside and see the leaves on the ground around my nearly bare tree, how do I know that they weren't carefully placed there in a natural looking pattern by angels or aliens?

Hmmm, I think I am going to slip over to my neighbor's house and pull one of the dry leaves off his tree and place it on the ground like it fell there naturally.

Thank you for your reply.

I think the problem I have with your example of placing leaves to fool your neighbor is that, unless you tell your neighbor, he really has no way to know that it did not occur naturally. That is, his "simplest" explanation is wrong, no matter how logical and reasonable it seems. (Well, I suppose he could dust for fingerprints...)

I guess I'll continue to keep my question in the back of my mind, and see if an answer eventually emerges.

[Rincewind]

I'm not sure how you could tell - someone who would claim to know the mind of God (or leprechauns or flying spaghetti monsters...) might have more of on idea I guess...

But inspecting the most promising scientific idea we have right now: 'How would we PROVE abiogenesis occurred?'

Well, I think the most convincing 'proof' of that (from my point of view at least) would be to inspect other planets for signs of life. And assuming we were to find life on other planets, it should reasonably match the probabilities predicted by an 'abiogenesis theory'.

If this turned out to be so, a theist could argue that God just 'happened' to place life on planets at a ratio that just 'happened' to match the abiogenesis theory, but I don't think many scientists would take that kind of argument seriously.

Inspecting planets for life is still a science in relative infancy though. The distances are vast. Progress is being made, but we might be waiting a while before we can start (confidently) starting the 'hit vs. miss' count...

I think it will start to happen - I just have no idea when....

Abiogenesis could also be reproduced in a lab, but I think an easy (and somewhat valid) counter-point would be that: "Well yes - you reproduced it in a lab. That means there was some 'intelligent prodding' involved...'. It would be good, strong evidence though - and probably good enough for many...

Thank you for your reply as well.

I have heard of abiogenesis, but was unaware that there was a theory related to it regarding the appearance/evolution of life on other planets (although, now that I think about it, it makes sense that it would have such a theory).

I'll look into that. But it looks like any evidence from this, pro or anti, will be found long after I'm dead - at least, I think so, given my knowledge of our current level of technology. But engineers are always surprising me.

Again, I'll keep this in the back of my mind and hope something pops up sooner.

[Tarski]

That is, his "simplest" explanation is wrong, no matter how logical and reasonable it seems.

That's true but so what? No one ever said that human rationality was infallible but is that a reason to embrace its opposite for the sake of existential comfort?

Am I rational or justified to believe that aliens placed all the leaves on the ground one by one? What if the idea of aliens just sounds cool and gives my life meaning? What if I get an inner feeling of comfort and surety about they aliens when I speak with them in my mind? That only makes me weirder doesn't it?

Just because something is logically possible doesn't mean its reasonable to believe it.

But maybe its true- you say. Well OK, believe it then.

[Rincewind]

That's true but so what? No one ever said that human rationality was infallible but is that a reason to embrace its opposite for the sake of existential comfort?

Did I say that we should embrace the opposite? No, I did not.

I asked a question. You don't have an answer to that question, and I accept that. (I also respect that you were willing to admit you didn't have an answer.)

This is an issue that puzzles and, to some extent, worries me. Which is why I asked the question.

Am I rational or justified to believe that aliens placed all the leaves on the ground one by one?

Is your neighbor rational or justified to believe that the leaves "just fell that way" when you're the one that placed them there?

That's the question I'm driving at. If there was some form of intervention (ranging from David Brin's aliens having a picnic, to God directing it, to pink unicorns prancing about the meadow...blah blah blah), even if we're rational and justified in believing that there wasn't...we're still WRONG.

Does that disturb you? It should. Science often leads to wrong answers, but the ultimate goal is to find the truth, yes?

So, what I'm asking is, is there a way to tell if there was intervention of some type, to distinguish DNA (or protein chains) that's been tampered with from DNA (or protein chains) that has not. I don't know if there is or isn't. Some of you - even ones I disrespect - have done research in areas I'm unfamiliar with, so I hoped maybe someone might know where I could go to look for an answer. RenegadeOfPhunk has given me one potential direction, and I intend to look into it.

If your whole goal is to just be dismissive of the question and its potential implications, then...good day to you.

What if the idea of aliens just sounds cool and gives my life meaning? What if I get an inner feeling of comfort and surety about they aliens when I speak with them in my mind?

Irrelevant to my question.

That only makes me weirder doesn't it?

Irrelevant.

Just because something is logically possible doesn't mean its reasonable to believe it.

It's also not a reason to dismiss it. Heck, people know the odds of winning the Mega Millions lottery are vanishingly small (1 in 175 million, or thereabouts), and they still play. And, every once in a while, someone still wins.

Back to your neighbor. He says, "All the other trees in the world, their leaves fall naturally in a random pattern (not Brownian, but still random). So, my tree must also drop its leaves in a natural, random pattern." Is he right? Or, if he investigates far enough, will he find your fingerprints that prove it isn't really natural or random? (Of course, the odds are good he'll not investigate that far, and you'll have a good laugh at his gullibility.)

Are there similar signs - fingerprints, if you will - in DNA or protein chains that we can detect if we look hard enough, and is there a way to detect them? That's my question.

I'm not concerned with "what if", I'm concerned with "what is". I'm trying to see if there's a way to find the truth, no matter how probable or improbable it is. (And, in the interest of openness, I put both natural and interventional evolution at a very high level of improbability.)

But maybe its true- you say. Well OK, believe it then.

Wow, the negative tone of your response to my quite polite question and reply is astounding.

I did not say whether I believed it or not. (You can infer or assume, but that doesn't make you right, nor does it mean you can be so insultingly dismissive.) I don't have any EVIDENCE either way. Neither do you, as you admit.

I'm not interested in odds or probabilities. I'm not interested in arguing faith or lack thereof. I'm interested in finding out what is true, no matter how remote the chances.

There may not be a way to answer this question at this time. Heck, there may never be a way to answer it. I don't know. And I know it's not a popular line of thought among some people. But I really do want to know, one way or another.

[BCSpace]

I don't see why evolutionary results can't be by design. Not that God intervenes now and again in the process (a possibility) but that by setting the initial conditions, one can manipulate the outcome.

Because that is a contradiction of the term "evolution" as understood by the scientific community. There is no such concept in science as Evolution via Supernatural Direction.

Yet there is nothing in science to prevent or preclude it.

[Droopy]

Yet there is nothing in science to prevent or preclude it.

No, there isn't. It is precluded, of course, by scientism, in which science attempts to answer ultimately teleological and metaphysical questions and claims that empirical observation and scientific method can penetrate beyond the actual boundaries of that method. It can do this, of course, through the pre-assumption that the visible material universe defines the absolute boundary of reality. It is all that there is. From this fundamental philosophical (not scientific) premise, the rest follows quite nicely.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Thank you for your reply as well.

No problem. I think the question you asked was reasonable...

I have heard of abiogenesis, but was unaware that there was a theory related to it regarding the appearance/evolution of life on other planets (although, now that I think about it, it makes sense that it would have such a theory).

To be honest, I'm mainly speaking for myself here - I can't speak 'authoritatively' on what a truly robust abiogenesis theory would look like. We don't have an abiogenesis theory yet - only a hypothesis. But I'm pretty sure finding life on other planets that was within a good range of error from an original prediction would be very good evidence... (In my mind, the best possible evidence I can think of - from my admittedly ametuer point of view...)

I'll look into that. But it looks like any evidence from this, pro or anti, will be found long after I'm dead - at least, I think so, given my knowledge of our current level of technology. But engineers are always surprising me. smile.gif

I'm with you I also find it difficult to imagine this kind of 'planet hunting' being done in my lifetime. But then again, look at the rate that science and technology is advancing... Can we really rule anything out...?

There are also other 'non-divine' theories - things like panspermia - the idea that life on Earth was 'seeded' from outer-space by micro-organisms hitching a ride on comets etc. But that just pushes the problem back - in the end you would still need something like abiogenesis happening 'somewhere' in the universe at some stage...

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution does in fact allow for its human direction. Everything from crops to cows to mate selection in humans is directed evolution.

[littlechild]

I have read "Origin of Species". Darwin never states that God is not a part of the process. Indeed, he seems to leave God's involvement open as a possibility. Sure, that's not science, but that's the way Darwin wrote the book.

I think you've done him a disservice.

HiJolly

Darwin does not explicitly state that God is not part of the process, but that is not the way modern Darwinists read Darwin. One need only read my signature quotes from the likes of Dawkins and Myers to realize that God is not part of the equation. Atheism is the chief feature of those who believe in evolution.

Even so, since I am near Missouri, I would like someone to SHOW ME that evolution occurred, rather than to proclaim with authoritarian thunder that evolution is fact. Since many Darwinists I have personal acquaintance with actively promote the view that God and his existence are solely derived from an overactive imagination then I conclude that unless they see it, they won't believe, and they advise others to follow suit. Thus it is fair to also hold them to their own standard - unless we SEE a species actually give birth to another species, through an empirical, proven, geneaological chain - then the whole concept must be (in my view, it actually IS) just the product of a hyperactive imagination.

Too often the scientific facts we have learned about our planet and the biological life forms living on it, are twisted to suit the theory of Darwin, much to the detriment of real science, and in disservice to the truth.

[thesometimesaint]

As the vast majority of scientists that have ever lived are theists. You are simply wrong about them being atheists.

[littlechild]

Yet there is nothing in science to prevent or preclude it.

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descentwith modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments."

- 1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers

Or, in the words of famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."

Don't you find it odd that biologists insist that evolution must be unsupervised, and they don't list God's purposes as among the things that might have affected evolution?

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is by definition mindless and godless. It doesn't mean God-guided, gradual creation - it means unguided, purposeless change. Darwinists don't say God created slowly - they say God had nothing to do with it.

excerpts from Philip E. Johnson's book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds

[littlechild]

To be honest, I wasn't that excited about Lenski's result when I first heard about it. I am more interested in knowing what genetic changes conferred the new ability on the bacteria, and that has not been figured out yet (to my knowledge). So I am still waiting before I call it intellectually satisfying. But Seelke's result is nothing more than sham science. It's sad that his "no data" result is the best claim to victory your side is capable of.

And your theory is... <poof> creation happened. Is that right? Never witnessed nor will be, I expect.

I can only imagine what "proof" means to you. To me the most significant evidence for common descent is the molecular evidence that Darwin could not have imagined at the time when he devised his theory. The biochemical mechanism of inheritance wasn't known then, and now that we do know, not only do we see compatibility with Darwin's theory but billions of bits of confirmatory evidence that we share ancestry with every other species whose genome has been sequenced. The hypothesized relatedness between organisms is re-told in our genes. It cannot be honestly asserted that common ancestry is believed on faith alone. How do you deal with the molecular evidence?

Dude, get real. Seelke's result is interesting to everyone except those who are prejudiced in favor of evolution. I personally am interested in the results of both men's experiments, because they both prove the same thing - that evolution can't really do much when you perform actual experiments. I find it highly interesting that yo claim Seelke's experiment "failed". And what is the nature of that failure? Why, it proved that evolution can't do more than one beneficial mutation at a time - this is very significant news. Lenski's experiment doesn't refute this - perhaps you can explain in greater detail exactly what it is that bothers you about Seelke's results - for it seems to be that you take exception to the fact that evolutionary theory wasn't bolstered by it. I can understand why this would upset you if you were going into the experiment with a predetermined outcome in mind - but that's not a very scientific posture to take.

Now at the supposed "confirmatory evidence" at the molecular level. You're on very shaky ground there, for in fact the complexity at the molecular level CONTRADICTS evolutionary theory. There is nothing in DNA that isn't better explained by intelligent design than by evolutionary theory. DNA is SO complex that it defies mathematics to come to the conclusion that it happened to arise from spontaneous, random, natural processes.

You yourself use the term hypothetical when describing the relationships between species. In this you are correct, but never has a hypotheses been considered as PROOF. Not in science, not until Darwinism, have hypothetical scenarios been promulgated as TRUTH.

If this were all Darwinists were saying, I could stomach it. What I cannot condone, and what no true scientist SHOULD condone, is accepting as a confirmed FACT something which is merely an hypothesis. That's why I correctly claim that to believe it requires an act of FAITH.

You may BELIEVE there is a relationship - but you can't prove one. You may ACCEPT the word of scientists that it is so, but THEY can't prove it scientifically either. They see similarities between structures and make a leap of faith that they must have been produced, the one from the other. But if that is the case, they do it very poorly, because the Darwinian Tree of Life gets altered with every "new" insight. They have computer programs to regenerate the Tree every time they find a new similarity they hadn't observed before. They have changed it over and over and each group of scientists who come up with a new relationship go back to the computer program and regenerate the geneaology every time it takes their fancy to do so. It's the work of MEN, who don't know what the crap they are doing. They are not establishing the TRUTH here, they are guessing and hypothesizing.

[thesometimesaint]

Do you even know what a theory in science is?

[Tarski]

No, there isn't. It is precluded, of course, by scientism, in which science attempts to answer ultimately teleological and metaphysical questions and claims that empirical observation and scientific method can penetrate beyond the actual boundaries of that method. It can do this, of course, through the pre-assumption that the visible material universe defines the absolute boundary of reality. It is all that there is. From this fundamental philosophical (not scientific) premise, the rest follows quite nicely.

There is nothing built into science that precludes any and all ideas of God. A scientist can be a theist of course. However, in practice, the success of science depends on employing, not atheism as such, but at least a methodological atheism. This simply means that we assume that there are no invisible supernatural beings who are messing with our experiments.

The further atheistic aspect of science is to eschew adopting beliefs about the world for which there is no publicly available evidence.

Can you imagine a scientific journal with the following sentences?

"The authors find that the rate of bacterial growth is initially approximately exponential but due angelic influence, ultimately follows a logistic curve. The authors offer as evidence of this, their inner convictions derived from fasting and prayer. Indeed, one author had a vision of the angelic forces influencing the growth rate"

As far as assuming that the visible material universe defines the absolute boundary of reality, I think you misrepresent scientific thinking (or even atheistic philosophy). Plenty of invisible things are admitted but only things that fit into a rational and robust theoretical framework and are supported by sufficient evidence. What else would you expect?

Even you reject the majority of supernatural explanations that have been offered in history. On what basis? Can you avoid hypocrisy?

If a posited entity is sufficiently supported by evidence of the appropriate kind, then it isn't supernatural anymore. The notion of "material" is conceptually underdetermined and informal anyway. How would you clarify the distinction between material and non-material entities?

Finally, we tend to reject elaborate entities that are introduced by religion to explain things that already have better explanations.

[semlogo]

As the vast majority of scientists that have ever lived are theists. You are simply wrong about them being atheists.

I think less than 10% of scientists are actually theists. It used to be a little higher, but not by much.

[The Dude]

Dude, get real. Seelke's result is interesting to everyone except those who are prejudiced in favor of evolution. ..I find it highly interesting that yo claim Seelke's experiment "failed". And what is the nature of that failure? Why, it proved that evolution can't do more than one beneficial mutation at a time - this is very significant news. Lenski's experiment doesn't refute this - perhaps you can explain in greater detail exactly what it is that bothers you about Seelke's results...

I already explained several problems with Dr. Seelke. For one, his results are unpublished and likely unpublishable. Nobody knows why his bacteria didn't develop new traits because we hardly know what he tried to do. He's not a very successful scientist (from my search of his record) so when he fails to find evolution in his bacteria it may well be that he sucks at bench work. It takes a fair amount of skill to succeed in this field. Lenski's work is published and his peer reviewed conclusions are very different from the way you keep characterizing them, so quit your party-line yammering that Seelke and Lenski proved the same thing.

Now at the supposed "confirmatory evidence" at the molecular level. You're on very shaky ground there, for in fact the complexity at the molecular level CONTRADICTS evolutionary theory. There is nothing in DNA that isn't better explained by intelligent design than by evolutionary theory. DNA is SO complex that it defies mathematics to come to the conclusion that it happened to arise from spontaneous, random, natural processes.

You can only make this argument if you retreat from evolutionary theory and attack the origin of life, and you already agreed that it is a totally different topic. It is an undeniable fact that detailed molecular relationships exist between all species with a degree of relatedness that matches the branches on an evolutionary tree: this is very important evidence for common descent but creation has no counter explanation. All you can do is shrug and say "so what" or else shift the debate back to the origin of life.

You yourself use the term hypothetical when describing the relationships between species.

Where did I say "hypothetical"? I just did a search and can't find what you are referring to.

You may BELIEVE there is a relationship - but you can't prove one. You may ACCEPT the word of scientists that it is so, but THEY can't prove it scientifically either. They see similarities between structures and make a leap of faith that they must have been produced, the one from the other.

Many ID proponents also believe there are real common descent relationships, including Michael Behe. I am going to keep pointing that out whenever you assert there is no proof or evidence for common descent. You'd better have a response or else give up this line of attack.

But if that is the case, they do it very poorly, because the Darwinian Tree of Life gets altered with every "new" insight. They have computer programs to regenerate the Tree every time they find a new similarity they hadn't observed before. They have changed it over and over and each group of scientists who come up with a new relationship go back to the computer program and regenerate the geneaology every time it takes their fancy to do so. It's the work of MEN, who don't know what the crap they are doing. They are not establishing the TRUTH here, they are guessing and hypothesizing.

The changes you describe are fine-tuning of models that existed before the advent of genomic biology. This is how science works, my child. You have so much to learn.

[littlechild]

Do you even know what a theory in science is?

How condescending of you, similar to something, the Dude might respond with.

Yes, I am quite aware of the fancy doubletalk scientists employ in a blatant attempt to describe as factual and truthful, things that are mere suppositions and conjectures, and totally intellectual conclusions with little proof out there in the real world.

FACT - no species ever has been proven conclusively to have descended from other species. When you ask for such proof, you get far less than what is required - you get meaningless statements about how DNA is similar, or how morphology is similar, or how bacteria have been taught to metabolize citrates for crying out loud.

Until you or the DUDE can show in your own words how the variety of species on this planet all came from one single common ancestor - with PROOF of this most absurd conclusion - then I say you are all fanatic believers in a fantasy THEORY - which by MY definition is just a working hypothesis, intended as an interim conclusion with no objective PROOF of the TRUTH of the claim.

[littlechild]

I already explained several problems with Dr. Seelke. For one, his results are unpublished and likely unpublishable. Nobody knows why his bacteria didn't develop new traits because we hardly know what he tried to do. He's not a very successful scientist (from my search of his record) so when he fails to find evolution in his bacteria it may well be that he sucks at bench work. It takes a fair amount of skill to succeed in this field. Lenski's work is published and his peer reviewed conclusions are very different from the way you keep characterizing them, so quit your party-line yammering that Seelke and Lenski proved the same thing.

I guess you don't realize the fine line between ad hominem responses and responses with substantive data upon which to base your conclusions.

The minimal depth you show here, and the inability to grapple with the implications of the discussion, lead me to believe you are not sincerely engaged in an exchange of ideas based on the value of those idea, you are merely a tape recorder of your previous responses.

You can only make this argument if you retreat from evolutionary theory and attack the origin of life, and you already agreed that it is a totally different topic. It is an undeniable fact that detailed molecular relationships exist between all species with a degree of relatedness that matches the branches on an evolutionary tree: this is very important evidence for common descent but creation has no counter explanation. All you can do is shrug and say "so what" or else shift the debate back to the origin of life.

Again, you make an assertion unfounded upon the substance of our discussion. When are evolutionists going to honestly engage the debate, and confess that they have only guesses, which they couch in authoritarian language as though they were speaking the truth? It is at best a mere guess - evolution does have gaps, and they fill those gaps with conjecture and guesses that naturalism is the ONLY explanation for those processes.

Where did I say "hypothetical"? I just did a search and can't find what you are referring to.

Many ID proponents also believe there are real common descent relationships, including Michael Behe. I am going to keep pointing that out whenever you assert there is no proof or evidence for common descent. You'd better have a response or else give up this line of attack.

The changes you describe are fine-tuning of models that existed before the advent of genomic biology. This is how science works, my child. You have so much to learn.

I can't help what "many ID proponents" do - can I? There is no basis for the conclusion that common descent has been proven. There is once again, only conjecture and belief, and the faith system that modern science has built up around the subject.

You have much to learn too - including how engage the TOPIC, rather than attack the messengers.

I see too clearly that the arrogance of the science community has colonized other baby memes and infected them with the authoritianism for which they are known. No person with common sense would conclude that a fact had proven merely because it issues from the lips of a scientist. Yet this seems to be the case with Darwinists these days. Every new biological insight gets interpreted in light of Darwinism whether it deserves to be or not.

Darwinism is largely a personality cult, not a true science.

[thesometimesaint]

IOW you have no clue as to what you are talking about.