Ben Stein: Win His Career

I want to see a link to an ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER that lays out the ACTUAL GENETIC CHANGES involved in a SINGLE RANDOM MUTATION that was BENEFICIAL. And I also want to see the data to QUANTITATIVELY document the BENEFITS that resulted (e.g., survival rates, etc.)

You seem sincerely interested in getting some data. Though I suspect you've set the bar high enough to reject almost anything anyone gave you, I'd like to walk you through an interesting case study which shows how this research is actually performed and the kind of results that are obtained.

Once upon a time, I brought up the example of the Mexican Blind Cavefish, which can be found among a list of other unintelligently designed critters here: http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
which seem to have no explanation in the context of an "Inteligent Designer". Eyes that don't work in in a fish that don't even need eyes? All of these cases have a very interesting evolutionary history and I'd be willing to go over any of them with you if you'd like.

Anyway, I was challenged as to how such a thing like the Mexican Blind Cavefish could occur in evolution so I... conducted research. The relevant source is here:

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1668%2F1540-7063(2003)043%5B0531%3ATSONTS%5D2.0.CO%3B2

I'll post snippets of the article and sumarize them immediately.

Based on the mtDNA tree, A and B lineage cavefish were inferred to evolve at different times from distinct surface fish ancestors, implying that they lost their eyesight independently. Multiple origins of blind cavefish in the genus Astyanax would be consistent with convergent reduction and loss of eyes that has been described in many different species of cave adapted fishes (Romero and Paulson, 2001). Although there is still uncertainty about the reliability of mtDNA for inferring the phylogenetic relationships between closely related taxa (Shaw, 2002), the mtDNA phylogeny is supported by genetic complementation in the progeny of a cross between Pachon and Los Sabinos cavefish (Wilkens, 1971). Therefore, at least some of the genes responsible for eye degeneration must be different in A and B lineage cavefish populations. Current studies are consistent with at least four (Guerrero, Sierra de Guatemala, Subterraneo, Sierra de El Abra cavefish populations) and possibly five (A and B lineage Sierra de El Abra cavefish populations) showing independent origins and visual degeneration episodes in Astyanax cavefish.

They found that a number of blind cavefish species have had different surface fish ancestors and have undergone convergent evolution. This means that there are multiple genetic pathways which have accomplished basically the same thing.

The following scenario is proposed for loss of vision in cavefish. The developing lens normally produces a factor(s) that is responsible for inducing differentiation of the anterior eye segment (e.g., cornea and iris) and sustaining retinal growth by suppression of apoptosis. The signal(s) is either greatly reduced or absent in the cavefish lens after it switches to an apoptotic pathway. Although generation of new cells in the retina (and other eye parts?) is not prevented, cell death triggered by the absence of the lens signal prohibits net growth, degeneration begins, and the cavefish eye is overwhelmed by rapid growth of the body. Therefore, cavefish eye degeneration does not appear to be an economic process: considerable metabolic energy must be expended by the continuous generation of new retinal cells that are eventually bound to die. These results appear to be inconsistent with any theory of cavefish eye regression that assigns a positive selective value to energy conservation.

This is some background on exactly what was happening (more depth is available in the article itself). Off-the-cuff hypotheses for this scenario include the Neutral Mutation Theory and energy conservation. The Neutral Mutation Theory would posit that since eyes no longer affect the viability (or fitness) of the fish, so errors have simply accumulated and prevent the eye from forming correctly. Alternatively, energy conservation could provide a (very) small selective pressure for not constructing or using a sense which does not contribute to survival. HOWEVER, since they found that the eyes don't work because they are actively told to destroy themselves during development, neither of these is the likely cause. A significant amount of energy is going into creating and killing eye cells, so something more interesting is probably going on...

The developmental and gene expression studies have revealed a negative relationship between midline signaling and eye formation, which could have major implications for cavefish eye regression. Thus, eyes could be lost as a secondary consequence of expanded midline signaling, which could promote enhancement of other sensory organs that may be advantageous to the survival of blind cavefish. We have recently shown that Shh is both sufficient and necessary for the differentiation of taste bud primordia (Y. Y., unpublished), which could be one of the affected sensory organs.

This seems to be the key. By discovering exactly which genes were preventing the eye from forming, they reognized that those responsible are also involved in other senses, which the cavefish would be under selection for. Basically, mutations which improve other senses are deleterious for the sense of sight (by preventing eye development), but since it doesn't need or use it's eyes, these mutations are net advantagous.

Third, parallel changes in gene expression in different cavefish populations would not be expected according to the neutral mutation hypothesis. The developmental results are more adequately explained by natural selection acting through pleiotropic genes that simultaneously promote some of the constructive features and suppress some of the regressive features of the cavefish phenotype. Recent QTL analysis has also suggested a possible role for pleiotropy in the co-evolution of constructive and regressive traits in Astyanax cavefish (Borowsky and Wilkens, 2002).

Pleiotropic genes is science talk for genes which control more than one thing. They saw similar gene expressions in related populations, indicating that random drift is most likely not the culprit. In the paper, they isolate the mutation to a gene called Shh and are actually able to "reverse" the mutation and regenerate most of broken eye.

Eye degeneration could have occurred in two steps, the first mediated by natural selection and the second by neutral mutation. Natural selection could have initiated the eye degeneration as a tradeoff between forming complete eyes and enhancing taste buds and other cranial sensory organs. The tradeoff may be controlled by Shh and other pleiotropic genes, whose midline signaling domains are expanded in cavefish embryos. Subsequently, neutral mutations may have accumulated in different eye genes as eye regression continued under relaxed selection in the cave environment.

Their discussion and conclusion based on their studies, reiterating what I was alluding to. Natural selection promoted mutations in Shh which destroyed the eye but promoted the pathways of other senses. Neutral mutations built up in other places. If you want more detail on any of these points, they provide extensive detail on their work and results - exactly what gene sequences they used, which proteins are involved, etc.

Thanks for the information. It looks like a nice piece of work that you did. Unless I’m missing something, however, it doesn’t seem to be quite what I was looking for.

For starters, it seems to focus more on the *loss* of vision in fish than on the acquisition of new capabilities. But more importantly, it doesn’t show specific genetic data. That data may be in the actual paper, but I do not have access to it.

As you know, the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution says that random mutations occur, and beneficial mutations are in effect “selected” by virtue of the enhanced survivability they cause.

All I am asking for is a specific example of where that actually happened, and where the beneficial mutation actually added some new feature or capability. As I explained before, this rules out bacterial resistance to antibiotics because that is merely a loss of sensitivity or information.

If asking for one example of a case of the theory actually working is “setting the bar too high,” I don’t know what else needs to be said.

That data may be in the actual paper, but I do not have access to it.

Hmmm, sorry. It's difficult to tell sometimes which papers I'm accessing publicly and which I'm accessing through a Stanford subscription. I've made it available here.

For starters, it seems to focus more on the *loss* of vision in fish than on the acquisition of new capabilities.

Actually, that's why I found this particular case study to be quite interesting. At first glance, creationists will wave this off as a "loss of information" - after all, it seems obvious that simple deleterious mutations will destroy the eye and since it's not being used, it doesn't matter. But when they took a closer look, the eyes were being destroyed ACTIVELY rather than just forming incorrectly - indicating that something more interesting was likely going on.

They kept going, studying how the eye is being destroyed in detail (and in multiple, independent lines of cave-fish) and proposed that pleiotropic genes such as Hh and Shh which control both eye formation and signaling domains of other sensory organs such as taste buds, were mutated to promote the other senses at the cost of the eyes, which aren't being used anyway.

A follow up review paper (very good paper) summarizes all these results and concludes that there is indeed a trait that is under positive selection and that the most likely candidate is Shh which is pleiotropic in eye formation and taste bud development.

As I explained before, this rules out bacterial resistance to antibiotics because that is merely a loss of sensitivity or information.

The cave-fish example also illustrates that there is very little sense of "information" in evolution and certainly not the kind you're alluding to. Which gene sequence of Shh contains more information?

1: GATTACGATTGAT
2: GATTAGGATTGAT

The question doesn't make sense. They're just sequences and mutating one nucleotide doesn't mean anything without context. What context? The phenotype and the environment. Sequences 1 expands the midline signaling domains, which enhances sense, but prevents eye development. Sequence 2 allows eye development, but doesn't allow the enhanced midline to improve senses. Now that we know the phenotypes, we can talk about fitness in the context of environments. In a cave environment, sequence 1 is more fit. In a surface environment, sequence 2 is more fit. That's it. Notice we never talked about information, only phenotypes and environments. All of this insight from a simple organism which shouldn't even exist if we are to assume that all critters are intelligently designed.

This is something that many people do not understand about mutations: the same mutation can be beneficial in one environment and harmful in another. There may well be no such thing as a mutation that is beneficial in every environment. The diversity of life is generally driven by differences in environment within a species, leading to selection for different mutations, and ultimately driving the varieties that occupy the different environments into different species.

All I am asking for is a specific example of where that actually happened, and where the beneficial mutation actually added some new feature or capability.

Advantageous and disadvantageous only makes sense in the context of an environment. In the case of the cave-fish, it would be enhanced taste/smell (important in a cave) at the cost of vision (neutral in a cave). In the case of antibiotic resistant bacteria, it's being resistant to an antibody (important in antibody-rich environment). Sickle-cell in a malaria-rich environment. There's always the classic Nylon Eating Bacteria - proving a entirely new niche for a bacteria and reproduced in the lab. I also recall doing case studies in class on a strange mutation affecting Worm Longevity and this article on a mutation preventing heart disease in humans (The details are here).

Interestingly, it appears that examples like this are so readily available that even Answers in Genesis now argue that creationists should stop using the there-are-no-beneficial-mutations argument and instead switch to the much more slippery (but equally incorrect) notion that "information" does not increase.

Hey Russ. Sounds as if you set up an even simpler “straw man” than I did. Should be a snap, IF evolution is true. Of course, if it’s a grand hoax, it may be problematic. Great job! Bob

OK, AMD, I misunderstood your post was a reference to Behe. As for all those scientific journals, they remind me of the optimist shoveling a pile of dung insisting that he's going to find a pony.
I do not doubt that these publications are usually worthy. In fact, I enjoy much of SA myself. It's just that their presuppositions of origins fail the testable and repeatable requirements of true science.
Finally, why the fury over Hugh Ross? Last I checked, HIS ideas are NOT being taught in schools. Best, Bob

You wrote:

The cave-fish example also illustrates that there is very little sense of “information” in evolution and certainly not the kind you’re alluding to. Which gene sequence of Shh contains more information?

1: GATTACGATTGAT
2: GATTAGGATTGAT

The question doesn’t make sense. They’re just sequences and mutating one nucleotide doesn’t mean anything without context. What context?

My reply:

Just because you can’t comprehend the “information,” that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. If you looked at a snippet of the binary code for a computer operating system, you wouldn’t be able to discern the “information” content, but it’s surely there. Change a bit or two at random and it could easily quit working. That’s a loss of information as plain as day.

I suggest you read the book Not By Chance! by Lee Spetner, a retired professor physics from MIT who specialized in information theory. He covers this topic well. Leave it to a physicist to educate biologists! (Oh, and they hate his guts for it too!)

Just because you can’t comprehend the “information,” that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. If you looked at a snippet of the binary code for a computer operating system, you wouldn’t be able to discern the “information” content, but it’s surely there. Change a bit or two at random and it could easily quit working.

Except that "working" is precisely the context that a computer program operates within. With your "definition" of information, you have to run the program to determine if information has been "gained" or "lost". Like I said, it only makes sense in the context of the program's environment (running it on a computer) and the resulting behavior. This is more like biological fitness than how any real definition of information works.

I suggest you read the book Not By Chance! by Lee Spetner, a retired professor physics from MIT who specialized in information theory.

I'm familiar with Spetner's book. Like all other arguements that attempt to argue that biological information cannot increase, his definition of information is not well defined and inconsistently applied. There's a reason for this. The definitions of information that are accepted by science and applied in fields like physics and computer science have very simple examples in evolution. Authors like Spetner, Gitt, Behe, and Dembski propose their own concepts of information but never clearly, quantitatively define any of them because every time someone writes down a definition, counter-examples are found. All of the following are types of information that have been considered/proposed by IDers:

Shannon Entropy (the most highly regarded and most used concept of information) can easily be shown to increase via evolution. For example:
Evolution of Biological Information and Information in Molecular Biology
The Algorithmic Information measure (a scientific measure used in computer science) is also not used by creationists because it too disagrees with your conclusions. Under this definition an enzyme performing both functions A and B must necessarily have more information than an enzyme which performs only function A or only function B. We have seen clear examples of this type in the lab and I've mentioned some in earlier posts as well.
Gitt Information is a creation of IDers and is not scientific because Werner Gitt fails to provide any basis for his 14 "theorems". He provides no working measure for meaning (a yet-unsolved problem Shannon wisely avoided) and asserts that data must have an intelligent source.
The Spetner Metric attempts to formalize the protein binding and specificity into a concept of information. Every time he twists his definition, counter-examples are provided: This provides a good review, but our favorite is always the Nylong Eating Bacteria
Dembski Information tries to manipulate Shannon Information so that it works. It starts out promising, but then he presents errors relating to Kolmogorov complexity and his hand-waving (which seems to be so common!). Ultimately, this ends with his Complex Specified Information, which is really an appeal to ignorance. Like the other proposals, we see plenty of convenient inconsistencies throughout his work.

There's some interesting observations we can make about these. The successful definitions of information are context-free. A completely context-dependent version of "biological information" (though you'd never hear it called that) is equivalent to the well known concept of biological fitness - which *only* has any meaning in the context of a given environment. The failed versions proposed by IDers fail because they essentially attempt to propose a static, objective context - inserting an arrow of "betterness" into evolution which simply doesn't belong (like I said earlier, there's no mutation which is objectively advantageous - that is, advantageous in all niches/environments). Additionally, these arguements fail in a very primitive way simply because anything a mutation can do, it can undo... if "information" can be decreased, it can certainly be increased as well.

Leave it to a physicist to educate biologists!

When I wish to be educated about biology, I usually go to biologists...

Biological information is perhaps a bit like pornography in the sense that, as a Supreme Court Justice once famously said, “I know it when I see it, but I can’t define it” (or something to that effect).

What people like you are doing is analogous to claiming that, because porn is hard to define precisely, therefore it does not exist. Nonsense.

Everyone with half or more a brain in their head *knows* that ID exists in nature. Some just like to play this stupid little game of pretending that recognizing it is not “scientific.”

If ID did not exist, then we would be able to construct a living cell from scratch, and we would certainly be able to explain how the first one came to be without defying the laws of combinatorics.

At least the ID folks are *trying* to understand what common sense tells us about nature. The anti-ID folks have given up completely.

I’ll close with a repeat of a few quotes that are well worth repeating many, many times:

“I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.” —Ernst Chain, Nobel-laureate biochemist

“The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.” —Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist

“Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!” —Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist

“So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. ... The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” —Sir Fred Hoyle, British astonomer (and self-professed atheist), from a lecture in 1982

“A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” —Sir Fred Hoyle

Biological information is perhaps a bit like pornography in the sense that, as a Supreme Court Justice once famously said, “I know it when I see it, but I can’t define it” (or something to that effect).

Science is the pursuit of sufficient objective data in order to convince third parties whom are rational and impartial of an argument. When you rely on subjective feeeeeelings don't be surprised when you fail.

What people like you are doing is analogous to claiming that, because porn is hard to define precisely, therefore it does not exist. Nonsense.

I'm explaining, with data and experiments to back up my arguments, why creationist arguments are unconvincing.

Everyone with half or more a brain in their head *knows* that ID exists in nature.

I recognize "creative design". But evolution is completely capable of being creative. Since you seem adverse to scientific papers, I'll give you some YouTube videos this time. I would consider these quite creative solutions:

An evolved Mountain Climber
An evolved "Frog"
An evolved Dancing "Worm" and it's close descendant and further decendant.

Evolutionary algorithms have improved designs of everything from Aibo walking gates for playing soccer to neural control systems to airfoil structures to VLSI chips. These solutions are often very complicated and it can take another whole cycle of research to figure out how they work (but they do, and a lot better than any human could design it). Novel, creative features can certainly arise from evolution.

Some just like to play this stupid little game of pretending that recognizing it is not “scientific.”

Claiming that an unspecified designer did an unspecified thing at some unspecified time using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons is not only a wholly unsatisfying explanation, it's also unscientific. Especially when a known self-consistent optimization algorithm like evolution can produce novel, creative designs and we have multiple lines of cross-confirming objective evidence of its function and history. Occam's razor and all.

If ID did not exist, then we would be able to construct a living cell from scratch

?

and we would certainly be able to explain how the first one came to be without defying the laws of combinatorics.

I thought we were talking about evolution. This is like talking about geology and then having someone ask "but how did the big bang construct matter to produce our rocks"? We don't know yet, you won't find a scientist who claims he does (though there are some hunches), but that doesn't prevent us from continuing to study geology.

At least the ID folks are *trying* to understand what common sense tells us about nature.

Except that common sense produces no objective data. Furthermore, objective data has conflicted with my common sense on more than one occasion. Liberals follow their feeeeelings, scientists don't.

Well, you’ve touched on three or four of my pet peeves.

First, you’ve invoked so-called “genetic algorithms” as evidence against ID. Surely you realize that genetic algorithms and neural-network training methods are set up by intelligent people. And I’ll bet dollars to dimes that the scientists and/or engineers who designed and implemented those algorithms and neural networks would be downright insulted if you told them they are no smarter than dirt!

You cannot claim that something set up by intelligent people proves something about what could happen with no intelligent input whatsoever. No intelligent design means NO intelligent design! Any little bit of ID, no matter how little, is ID. Until you understand that, you don’t understand the debate.

“Claiming that an unspecified designer did an unspecified thing at some unspecified time using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons is not only a wholly unsatisfying explanation, it’s also unscientific.”

You just told me not to rely on feeeeelings, but “unsatisfying” is a feeeeeeling! I agree we shouldn’t let our feelings dictate our beliefs, but that is exactly what I think people like you are doing as much as any “creationist.” Read what you wrote about “an unspecified designer did an unspecified thing at some unspecified time using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons.” Translation: I find ID “unsatisfying,” hence the actual evidence for it is irrelevant.

You are confusing “methodological naturalism” with “dogmatic naturalism.” As I wrote much earlier in this thread, yes, of course scientists look for natural explanations for natural phenomenon, but if they don’t find one, they should be honest and admit it rather than simply postulating that one must exist.

The origin of the first cell has never been explained scientifically — not even close. And the problem is not that we “just don’t know yet how it happened.” The problem is that we can virtually prove that it couldn’t have possibly happened by any purely naturalistic mechanism. That fact in itself is close to if not proof of the existence of ID in nature.

If you are a biologist by profession, you have my sincere condolences. You are condemned to tow the PC line in science or be ostracized and ridiculed. I can’t tell you how glad I am to be an engineer, a profession where I am not required to believe “nonsense of a high order,” as Fred Hoyle so eloquently put it.

First, you’ve invoked so-called “genetic algorithms” as evidence against ID.

Well, more as a happy byproduct of our understanding of evolution than anything else...

Surely you realize that genetic algorithms and neural-network training methods are set up by intelligent people.

I course, I've been one of those writers. Of all optimization algorithms, genetic algorithms are by far the simplest to implement. Random variation (with optional "mating") and a some measure of fitness or ranking of the individuals in a population. That's it. Say GO, and wait.

And I’ll bet dollars to dimes that the scientists and/or engineers who designed and implemented those algorithms and neural networks would be downright insulted if you told them they are no smarter than dirt!

Of course they would, but you also won't find them claiming that the results were of their design. You will hear them saying that evolution is a very nice method for designing clever and novel solutions to problems. I've given examples.

You cannot claim that something set up by intelligent people proves something about what could happen with no intelligent input whatsoever. No intelligent design means NO intelligent design! Any little bit of ID, no matter how little, is ID.

All we do is simulate how evolution works. Not surprisingly, it doesn't only work in theory, but in practice as well.

You just told me not to rely on feeeeelings, but “unsatisfying” is a feeeeeeling!

It is unsatisfying precisely because it provides no answers to substantive questions like
"Why does a fish that has eyes that don't work live in a cave where it doesn't need them."
"Why do all mammals including bats, whales, and dolphins have lungs instead of the gills of fish or the pass-through systems of birds."
"Why does the biogeography look like it does? Is there a reason we don't see kangaroos, koalas, etc, anywhere but Australia? The freshwater fish of Hawaii? Why are island biospheres so different from each other and everything else?"
ad infinitum.

Translation: I find ID “unsatisfying,” hence the actual evidence for it is irrelevant.

ID does not answer questions. The above were examples of interesting natural phenomenon. When a "theory" cannot explain the evidence presented by reality, it is discarded.

The origin of the first cell has never been explained scientifically — not even close.

You can keep your God of the gaps, but I hope you don't mind if we keep trying (like this brand new program at Harvard). Every time we've looked for a natural explanation for some phenomenon, we've eventually found one. If that's "faith in naturalism", it's at least backed up by induction of success. I'm more keen on results than philosophy anyway.

“All we do is simulate how evolution works. Not surprisingly, it doesn’t only work in theory, but in practice as well.”

Then you concede that evolution requires intelligent design, just as genetic algorithms do?

Oh, and when you “simulate how evolution works,” do you also simulate the possibility of everything going extinct — or nothing getting started in the first place?

“You can keep your God of the gaps, ...”

There’s another one of my little pet peeves. Calling the aspects of nature that we don’t understand “gaps” is like calling the outdoors the “gaps” between our buildings.

“We still do not know one-thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.” —Albert Einstein

"If evolution is true and there is no Creator, wouldn’t we be required, “ethically”, to kill the unfit?"

Let me introduce you to Margaret Sanger........

Then you concede that evolution requires intelligent design, just as genetic algorithms do?

Evolution is an intrinsic property of imperfect replicators in an environment with limited resources. Once you have those two things, you have variation and natural selection. Designing evolution is a far cry from designing every living thing in it's current form, though it does make for a far better theology than the "tinkerer" or "poofer" that ID/creationism proposes. You'll find that many on this forum and many scientists adopt this thinking. See Ken Miller (or this more recent lecture) or Francis Collins (I attended this lecture here at Stanford). I highly recommend the Miller lectures, he's quite funny and a great speaker.

Calling the aspects of nature that we don’t understand “gaps” is like calling the outdoors the “gaps” between our buildings.

I wouldn't go quite that far as the convergence of our understanding of each individual science has become so entangled with every other field in such a consistent and mutually reinforcing way... But I agree in principle - there will always be a boundary, which means there will always an "outside" which means there will always be the opening line of a news story "Current scientific research suggests..."

Well, the fact that this movie has so many people’s panties in a wad makes me want to see it. Have to see where it’s playing around me.

Here’s a preview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM

When you use terms such as “tinkerer” and “poofer,” I think you are simply showing that your mind is not big enough to grasp the concept of ID.

You seem to think that scientists simply get to decide what to believe based on their feelings and intuition. What you seem to be incapable of grasping is that it is the *evidence* that leads to inescapable conclusion of ID.

But go ahead and believe in “nonsense of a high order.”

I think the stork theory is more scientific than no theory at all.

“I think the stork theory is more scientific than no theory at all.”

Oh, so it’s better to have a bullsh*t theory than to admit that we just don’t yet understand what happened — or may never understand. Spoken like a true evolutionist.

I’m just glad you are not in law enforcement. According to your “thinking,” we’re better off convicting an innocent person than admitting that we just don’t know who committed the crime.