From that paper:
The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design.
It seems poor Dr. Axe is not familiar with what evolutionary theory entails.
It does NOT entail chance!
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection entails an algorithm. Selection is not a left to chance, but is shaped by the fitness landscape.
The findings of Dr. Axe are, at best, ambiguous to their origins, because they are not suggestive of any particular mechanisms by which the pathways he was examining could emerge. Therefore, it is a poor choice for supporting the "power" of Intelligent Design.
Do you have any papers that can demonstrate some characteristics of the design process, tools, or the Designer itself, that we can base predictions of more findings on? Perhaps something that would suggest dramatic innovations in medical science? (If we had some of the Designer's original engineering specs, that would work wonders for humanity!!)
If you cannot do that, perhaps you have an insightful test to tell if we were all
intentionally designed by the Designer, or if we are merely living in His dust bin? How do you know that life on Earth is not entirely made of the Designer's imperfect rejects, that he threw away, while creating better life forms for another planet?
Science is an empirical beast. We want empirical answers to its core questions.
Wowbagger, none of the examples you gave were based on macroevolutionary theory.
Not all of them. But, for the Kakapo example, it is relevant to a certain degree. I can explain why,
But, first a question for you: Do you believe that all or most bird species evolved from a single 'kind' of bird that was Designed? Or, are some birds from a different 'kind' than others?
If you believe the later, then know this: The framework of evolution predicts that all bird species would be related to each other in branching trees of descendants. (I could try to claim that fossil and genetic evidence, among other things confirms this, but I know you will try to dismiss that somehow.) The important point to make, here, is that once the tree of relationships is established, various factors amongst them can be inferred.
Part of that was the model of sexual selection amongst birds. And the model works between ALL birds, in that branching-tree manner.
When it comes to endangered species, such as the kakapo, there are not enough to breed them for experiments (if there were, they would not be endangered, would they?) So, you are forced to
think outside the species. Any inter-species inferences one can make, for modeling their behavior would be useful. Don't you agree?
Of course, if you believe the former: That all birds emerged from a common kind, then you already accept 99% of the diversification power of Evolution, and there is little reason to keep debating the issue.
Do you understand this better?
If there is anything Intelligent Design is uniquely qualified to add to the matter, what would that be?
stuff like breeding which has been done for thousands of years and predates evo theory, and then say these principles of breeding are based on evo theory, that macroevolutionary theory is what enabled them to work, etc,....it's all hogwash.
I suppose you think gravity is hogwash as well? You know apples fell from trees, long before Newton discovered gravity. They just called it something different: "falling to the ground". Therefore, it could not be based on the principles of gravity, right?
Artificial selection is a special case of natural selection. We are basically interfering with the otherwise natural fitness landscape of animals, so that their offspring will adapt to serve our own demands. But,
we cannot control for all aspects of the landscape through breeding. Nature still sneaks in as an important factor, in the form of unintended side effects.
In other words, all of the science you mentioned works just as well if you apply creationism, ID, or anything else
How come Creationism or ID is not generating these ideas or findings? How come Evolutionary biologists are the ones with all the luck?
Doesn't mean they all evolved from a common, original cell.
For that, we have to go down into another layer of science.
In fact, we are seeing the gradual evolution from single cells to multicellular entities, right now, to a certain degree, in some species of sponges and fungi. There is evidence of specialization going on amongst colonies of single celled species, that could, over long periods of time, give rise to new forms of organized multicelled species.
Here is one such paper, I plucked out randomly, that gives us some insight:
http://nature.berkeley.edu/taylorlab/papers/medina2003.pdf
As far as ID or creationism, they are a framework like evo theory and they work. Deal with it.
ID infers that certain things are 'irreducibly complex'. Can you give me an example of how this is supposed to make something 'work'?
On sedimentation, for example, the creationist model for lower layers not always and perhaps rarely being laid down gradually has astonishingly been shown to be correct, defying what one would expect.
I think most geologists, including non-great-flood geologists
would expect that. There are avalanches, volcanic eruptions, plate-tectonics, etc. But, for some reason, the evidence for fossils in the Grand Canyon show that they are far, far older than Creationists would estimate. Such data is also useful to miners, though that would not be allowed in the Grand Canyon, specifically, of course. Flood geology is not terribly helpful, for example, when it comes to finding gold deposits or oil, in ways that other sciences are.
Conservation efforts would be there with or without belief in neodarwinism. Sorry but trying to say macroevo theory is making an impact in these areas is downright silly.
Oh, I am sure conservation efforts would go on without Darwinism.
I have demonstrated that Darwinism has contributed in real, valuable ways to those efforts. Saving the Kakapo, for example, required insights from the study of Evolution. ID would not have saved them. If evolution was really such a hoax, they would all be dead.
If I am wrong, then tell me: What would Intelligent Design contribute to such efforts?
