Disproving the Bible

[FatAndFaithless]

You're willfully ignoring the source, which is important. And no, before cling to your genetic fallacy teddy bear, its not a fallacy to to note that these people are arguing from a position that is pre-drawn and in direct contradiction to the article they're analyzing. They are starting from a point that is scientifically laughable and has zero evidence and has never been seriously proposed by any real scientist, AND they make it clear they hold these views on that same website. You want us to just ignore that while they 'analyze' a scientific article? Nope, sorry. Its like listening to an anti-vaxxer criticizing an article that says vaccines are useful. We cant ignore the lens through which these people are operating, and its a lens that's utterly deformed and corrupted through willful ignorance, manipulation of data, unscientific practices, and dogmatism.

And yes, if an atheist were to engage in this kind of huckster-like pseudoscience crap they would be called out just as much.

Ah, so evolution is true because there is no scientific information to suggest otherwise. Oh, and by the way, if you have some scientific information that suggests a problem, it won't be considered because evolution is true. Sound reasoning. You have illustrated the bias that many scientist have--thank you.

YOu really didn't read a word of that, did you. We believe evolution is the best model we have right now because that's where all the current evidence points, and so far it's withstood every challenge brought against it. And if you had evidence that contradicted it, science would gladly address it, because it could reveal an area where we could improve our understanding and possibly change the theory. The only dogmatic party here is the people (like your favorite sites you've been linking) that start with the idea that evolution is false. That is unscientific and dishonest, as is your summation of my points. At least attempt to understand what I'm saying or this conversation is as pointless as the others you've refused to have in this thread.

[Dystopia]

Or starting with the premise that god exists, a very wicked, dangerous and irrational assumption. God exists should be at most (and it is highly unlikely) a conclusion, if there were any evidence.

[Jenny A]

The "peer reviewed" journal cited is Bio-complexity.org. It isn't really a peer reviewed journal in the ordinary sense of the word. It's dedicated to a particular point of view: Intelligent Design. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity Although it claims to be neutral, all of it's editors are pro Intellegent Design. http://www.jackscanlan.com/2010/12/bio-c...t-complex/
And it's had trouble getting enough articles to stay afloat. Consequently, it's had to frequently publish articles by it's own board of editors. The journal itself does not list the editors credentials--always a bad sign.

If there were a controversy, you'd think there would be scientists flocking to publish there. You'd also think that finding a editorial board with credentials to be proud of would be easy too.

So, the technical information in the article must be incorrect because of the beliefs of those that wrote it? Should we toss out all of Newton's contributions to science...he believed in God?

You did not comment on the contents.

Nope, I said it wasn't peer reviewed because the journal it was published in isn't peer reviewed in the scientific sense. Peer reviewed articles get looked at by other real scientists. This one won't.

And Newton did not cite god as the reason for his principles. Intellegent Design presupposes a designing god. There are many many Christian scientists who believe in evolution and work in the field. The don't find the need to cite magic/god.

[Crossless2.0]

If you think that's amusing, try posting this on an evolutionary biology forum, or I dunno...a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.

Cue the standard whining about how The Establishment colludes to shut out those brave mavericks who see through the Darwinian lies.

SteveII, according to the ID/creationist crowd, everything that tends to marginalize their belief system is ideologically driven. It's not that the science has left them gasping in the dust or that they have failed utterly to present a scientific case for their religiously motivated views. It's a Conspiracy Against The Truth! It's a Culture War! They're the victims (Christians in the West are nothing if not eager make-believe victims in lieu of real persecution) of a secular, liberal plot to discredit everything holy, good, and true. Hence the need for the Discovery Institute and its sham "research" arm, the Biologic Institute which sponsors Bio-Complexity Journal. Are you familiar with the Wedge Document? If not, you might want to read it before casting your lot with these people. They are the contemporary equivalent of Lysenko -- party hacks, as it were, whose commitment to a cause outweighs their commitment to dispassionate inquiry and the truth.

But we're supposed to take them seriously? Bitch, please.

[Esquilax]

Ah, so evolution is true because there is no scientific information to suggest otherwise.

Yes! If all the evidence points one way, and none of the evidence shows any other possibilities, then that way is the best current model to describe reality! What is so hard about this?

Oh, and by the way, if you have some scientific information that suggests a problem, it won't be considered because evolution is true. Sound reasoning. You have illustrated the bias that many scientist have--thank you.

Now, see, I find this really interesting, because a couple of pages back I told you that just finding "problems," that just poking holes in a legitimate theory, does not make a competing idea any more strong. In fact, you agreed with me when I said that. And yet now you're here, saying the exact opposite of that, telling us that if there's a problem with evolution then creationism must be true. I mean, that must be what you're saying, because if you aren't then this bullshit about problems not being considered doesn't even make sense. See, what you're actually whining about here, in that case, is that even thought 99 percent of the evidence points toward evolution, it's unfair that we don't consider the entire theory to be on shaky ground and possibly false because of the one percent of "problems" that ideologically driven hacks had tried to poke. Only it's worse in this case, because all your "problems" are are current unknowns, meaning that to use them as reasons why evolution isn't true is an argument from ignorance!

So tell me, Steve: are you really saying that 99 percent of the evidence should be disregarded the moment one point of doubt comes up? Or should we recognize that 99 percent of the evidence is still a huge majority of the facts pointing one way, and so therefore that single fact that has yet to be resolved will, on the balance of probability, fall into place as a part of the evolutionary reality? See, that's the problem with your position: you're arguing as if you exist in a world in which there's equal evidence for creationism as there is for evolution. But you don't live in that world, you live in the real one, where there's no evidence at all for creation, and tons and tons of evidence for evolution. Asking that we give equal credence to the idea that evolution isn't real, in the face of all the evidence for it when all you can produce against it is a single argument from ignorance hosted by non-peer reviewed sources is ludicrous.

To round things out, let's play the "what's wrong with the creationist's sources?" game!

So, the article Steve linked to was written by Casey Luskin, who is a lawyer, and hence has absolutely no training to be able to speak on this issue. Fun fact: when you search his name in google, you get the autocomplete "Casey Luskin liar." Fun, right? Luskin also works for an appendage of the Discovery Institute, specifically the one behind the infamous wedge strategy. It is therefore interesting how quick Steve was to bitch about the bias toward evolution in science, when he's happy to post links to people working for a group that has at its aim the "defeat of scientific materialism." One would think that having that as their goal from the outset is the biggest bias there is, but I guess it's only a problem if people Steve doesn't agree with are doing it.

Of the other source Steve cites, one of the writers of that paper is William Dembski, who also works for the same branch of the Discovery Institute as a senior fellow. The only reference I could find to Winston Ewert is a graduate student in computer sciences- such a pro on evolution!- talking to, again, Casey Luskin. Ann Gauger works for the Biologic Institute, the website of which looks like a wordpress blog and blatantly states on its "About" page that any scientist working for them is "working from the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed." That's leading the evidence, not following it, and represents an enormous bias that cannot be excused. The final name, Robert Marks II, is a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University, a private Baptist university that Ewert also seems to have attended.

In short, of the people writing this paper about evolution, not one has a degree in biology or any training in a relevant field that would give them any basis for which to be writing a paper on it. Several of the writers work for entities which have an inbuilt and immediate bias against evolution that makes any science they purport to do on the subject incredibly suspect to begin with. The other two have clear religious biases, and the paper itself was published without peer review in a non accredited source.

This is standard creationist fare: papers written with only the vaguest pretense of scientific respect, by people with no credentials in a relevant field, and published in such a way as to do an end run around fact checking, all in accordance with a pre-existing bias that they share. Steve, you've been suckered, and it only took me ten minutes on google to find out that, for all your crying about bias in the scientific community, there's an obvious, real bias in the sources you choose to represent yourself.

[SteveII]

@Esquilax

You are correct that poking holes in a theory does not prove another theory. I was addressing the false assertions that evolution is a proven fact. You think it is a fact because in your worldview, there is absolutely no conceivable alternative. I am pointing out that the "facts" do not disprove my worldview.

There is no way in the world that 99% of the evidence points to common ancestry of all life. The only strong evidence is that biologist can breed organism and get them to adapt or evolve some sort of new function in the species or genus levels. To then extrapolate that to all living things across family, order, class, phylum and kingdom is a huge leap.

I actually read the links you posted on the fossil record. Listing a few dozen or even hundreds of transitional forms does not conclusive evidence make. The explanation can easily be that these were different animals. What would be conclusive evidence (99%) is what we don't see--organisms with small changes into a totally new one. Nor do we see organisms with strange appendages that would later become something. We don't see organism with organs that are not fully functional. The predictive powers of evolution in the fossil record fall well short of your 99%

In the area of genetics, we have some orphaned genes that show up out of nowhere. You have groups of genes showing up in branches of organisms where the theory predicts they should not be. The counter argument is "look at all the common genes" or "see the junk DNA from older organisms". Some common genes are expected for all living things. We are finding uses for junk DNA so that is certainly not in the 99% range of proof. When you draw out the genetic tree of life, you get convoluted connections that don't make sense. Genetics is certainly not the conclusive proof that evolutionist thought it would be.

In micro-biology, we are finding that things are more complicated than they seemed to be (actually a better phrase would be mind-boggling complicated). How did DNA evolve? How did a cell evolve? How do GRNs evolve? Do you honestly think we know within your 99%?

The origin of life challenges, the first domino in this chain of events, is a massive mystery. Does that fit into the 99% certainty or is that a separate issue? Because it is a necessary ingredient and proving that life could come from non-life would be an immense proof that all this could have happened.

Has there been enough time for all the necessary mutations to occur, accumulate, and evolve all the necessary organisms? What is the rate of beneficial mutations? Is there are flaw in thinking that minute random mutations accumulate toward a beneficial end--getting "selected by the organism even though there is no immediate functional value or is it more probably that mutations that are not of immediate beneficial use are corrected, selected out, or die off. To make this even more complicated, multiple mutations are needed in multiple genes to effect even the first step in the chain to make a beneficial change--requiring an exponential amount of time, during which the organism has to keep around genetic material of no immediate use. While I am not a scientist, this does not sound like 99% certainty.

Regarding the article, you want to give the impression that these people are uneducated hacks. The author of the article is irrelevant, but the content was useful to show the relationship between the original paper by Wilf and Ewens and the subsequent paper citing major flaws in it. The paper was mainly about the math that Wilf and Ewens used and therefore would require understanding mathematics as it applies to biology--which the authors were perfectly qualified to do:

Ann Gauger received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

William A. Dembski has a whole bunch of degrees including postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University and a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago.

The other two have degrees in engineering, computers and/or mathematics.

[FatAndFaithless]

@Esquilax

You are correct that poking holes in a theory does not prove another theory. I was addressing the false assertions that evolution is a proven fact. You think it is a fact because in your worldview, there is absolutely no conceivable alternative. I am pointing out that the "facts" do not disprove my worldview.

There is no way in the world that 99% of the evidence points to common ancestry of all life. The only strong evidence is that biologist can breed organism and get them to adapt or evolve some sort of new function in the species or genus levels. To then extrapolate that to all living things across family, order, class, phylum and kingdom is a huge leap.

I actually read the links you posted on the fossil record. Listing a few dozen or even hundreds of transitional forms does not conclusive evidence make. The explanation can easily be that these were different animals. What would be conclusive evidence (99%) is what we don't see--organisms with small changes into a totally new one. Nor do we see organisms with strange appendages that would later become something. We don't see organism with organs that are not fully functional. The predictive powers of evolution in the fossil record fall well short of your 99%

In the area of genetics, we have some orphaned genes that show up out of nowhere. You have groups of genes showing up in branches of organisms where the theory predicts they should not be. The counter argument is "look at all the common genes" or "see the junk DNA from older organisms". Some common genes are expected for all living things. We are finding uses for junk DNA so that is certainly not in the 99% range of proof. When you draw out the genetic tree of life, you get convoluted connections that don't make sense. Genetics is certainly not the conclusive proof that evolutionist thought it would be.

In micro-biology, we are finding that things are more complicated than they seemed to be (actually a better phrase would be mind-boggling complicated). How did DNA evolve? How did a cell evolve? How do GRNs evolve? Do you honestly think we know within your 99%?

The origin of life challenges, the first domino in this chain of events, is a massive mystery. Does that fit into the 99% certainty or is that a separate issue? Because it is a necessary ingredient and proving that life could come from non-life would be an immense proof that all this could have happened.

Has there been enough time for all the necessary mutations to occur, accumulate, and evolve all the necessary organisms? What is the rate of beneficial mutations? Is there are flaw in thinking that minute random mutations accumulate toward a beneficial end--getting "selected by the organism even though there is no immediate functional value or is it more probably that mutations that are not of immediate beneficial use are corrected, selected out, or die off. To make this even more complicated, multiple mutations are needed in multiple genes to effect even the first step in the chain to make a beneficial change--requiring an exponential amount of time, during which the organism has to keep around genetic material of no immediate use. While I am not a scientist, this does not sound like 99% certainty.

Regarding the article, you want to give the impression that these people are uneducated hacks. The author of the article is irrelevant, but the content was useful to show the relationship between the original paper by Wilf and Ewens and the subsequent paper citing major flaws in it. The paper was mainly about the math that Wilf and Ewens used and therefore would require understanding mathematics as it applies to biology--which the authors were perfectly qualified to do:

Ann Gauger received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

William A. Dembski has a whole bunch of degrees including postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University and a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago.

The other two have degrees in engineering, computers and/or mathematics.

I don't think it's even worth pointing out how catastrophically flawed your understanding of evolution is, but there I did it anyway. And the point Esquilax was addressing when he mentioned the contributors' credentials was the fact that they are come from organizations that start a priori with the position that materialistic science and evolution are wrong. I don't see why you can't grasp this idea. They start by saying evolution is wrong, then try to create or twist little bits of uncertainty into substantive objections. I don't know how many times we have to make this clear to you, the people of the Discovery Institute and similar organizations are NOT SCIENTIFIC.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am pointing out that the "facts" do not disprove my worldview.

If your worldview contains some statement along the lines of "evolution is not a proven fact" then yes - they do.

There is no way in the world that 99% of the evidence points to common ancestry of all life. The only strong evidence is that biologist can breed organism and get them to adapt or evolve some sort of new function in the species or genus levels. To then extrapolate that to all living things across family, order, class, phylum and kingdom is a huge leap.

No, that's not "the only strong evidence", that's not even remotely evidence for common decent. Want me to explain this to you again - from the beginning? Or, will you just clam the fuck up when we reach the "eureka" moment again? What that is...is a strawman that you feel comfortable arguing against. Don't get me wrong, I understand, -your argument- is ridiculous, common decent is not. I'd rather argue against -your argument- as well.

You do realize that common decent and evolution are not interchangeable, don't you? We could have found that evolution had occurred in multiple lineages of uncommon decent - or that evolution had occurred in one lineage but not the other, or that evolution had occurred in none of the non-evidenced multiple lineages of uncommon decent. The door was wide open to any of that. That's just not what we found when we figured out how to look.

I actually read the links you posted on the fossil record. Listing a few dozen or even hundreds of transitional forms does not conclusive evidence make.

Any form can be said to be transitional.

The explanation can easily be that these were different animals. What would be conclusive evidence (99%) is what we don't see--organisms with small changes into a totally new one.

Not something that we would expect to see. Biology has limits. You're looking for a crocoduck, and I won't be surprised when you don't find one. Evolutionarily speaking, you haven't "changed into" anything. You are now what your species has always been. Your not -just- a homo sapien, you're a primate - all the way back to being a bony fish...and even further still. We never stopped being these things, we haven't "changed into something totally new", we simply have a longer list of modifiers than our ancestors. That's all our system of classification is - a list of modifiers. We already need new rungs, as we have observed existing species - speciate.

Nor do we see organisms with strange appendages that would later become something.

Take a look at your feet and tell me they aren't strange hands.

We don't see organism with organs that are not fully functional. The predictive powers of evolution in the fossil record fall well short of your 99%

Non-functioning organs would be something we'd expect to find as an exception, not a rule. Genetic economy. What evolution predicts is that we would find that organs can have more than one use. That structures can be re-tasked or re-purposed. That "feet" can make workable "flukes". Ever seen a whale stand on his feet? That's what we might call "not fully functional". They seem to do aight though, eh?

In the area of genetics, we have some orphaned genes that show up out of nowhere. You have groups of genes showing up in branches of organisms where the theory predicts they should not be. The counter argument is "look at all the common genes" or "see the junk DNA from older organisms". Some common genes are expected for all living things.

-Sure, if they're related. Your genes come from your parents...remember? Their genes from their's......and so on and so forth. This is where they come from. Would you like to present some other source...so that we don't have just this one to consider? That would be all you had to do to erode the notion of common descent.

We are finding uses for junk DNA so that is certainly not in the 99% range of proof. When you draw out the genetic tree of life, you get convoluted connections that don't make sense. Genetics is certainly not the conclusive proof that evolutionist thought it would be.

Actually, it is. Always willing to explain this to you again.......

In micro-biology, we are finding that things are more complicated than they seemed to be (actually a better phrase would be mind-boggling complicated). How did DNA evolve? How did a cell evolve? How do GRNs evolve? Do you honestly think we know within your 99%?

Pointing to any particular thing we don't know won't have the effect of waiving away what we do.

The origin of life challenges, the first domino in this chain of events, is a massive mystery. Does that fit into the 99% certainty or is that a separate issue? Because it is a necessary ingredient and proving that life could come from non-life would be an immense proof that all this could have happened.

You're not bitching about evolution or genetics anymore - you're whining about abiogenesis. We don't know. End of, for now, maybe forever - we.....don't.......know. Understand? However this occurred - even if a god "poofed" the first living thing into existence, what we do now...is that since then, life has been evolving.

Has there been enough time for all the necessary mutations to occur, accumulate, and evolve all the necessary organisms? What is the rate of beneficial mutations? Is there are flaw in thinking that minute random mutations accumulate toward a beneficial end--getting "selected by the organism even though there is no immediate functional value or is it more probably that mutations that are not of immediate beneficial use are corrected, selected out, or die off. To make this even more complicated, multiple mutations are needed in multiple genes to effect even the first step in the chain to make a beneficial change--requiring an exponential amount of time, during which the organism has to keep around genetic material of no immediate use. While I am not a scientist, this does not sound like 99% certainty.

A mutation does not need to be beneficial for it to persist in a population. It need only be non-deleterious. Nothing is "accumulating toward a beneficial end" - there is no "toward" and there is no "end". Get it? That shit - would be the purvey of ID, not evolution.

Regarding the article, you want to give the impression that these people are uneducated hacks.

They are -educated- hacks. That makes it even worse.

[Esquilax]

@Esquilax

You are correct that poking holes in a theory does not prove another theory. I was addressing the false assertions that evolution is a proven fact. You think it is a fact because in your worldview, there is absolutely no conceivable alternative. I am pointing out that the "facts" do not disprove my worldview.

I think it is a fact because evolution is defined as replication with inherent modification over successive generations, and that this is a literally observed thing that we can reproduce in laboratories, at multiple scales and resolutions, without expending much effort at all.

I think that evolution is a fact because it's something I can watch happening, can see at the genetic level through tests, can see in the fossil record through the incredible predictive models that modern evolutionary theory has furnished and had confirmed. At this point, the level of evolution is so strong, and seeing it first hand is such a trivial request, that this is seriously like you're saying that "the sky is blue when it's sunny" is not a fact.

There is no way in the world that 99% of the evidence points to common ancestry of all life. The only strong evidence is that biologist can breed organism and get them to adapt or evolve some sort of new function in the species or genus levels. To then extrapolate that to all living things across family, order, class, phylum and kingdom is a huge leap.

Ouch, wrong again, Steve-o! As literally seven seconds on google shows, there is plenty of evidence for common descent, not just the one thing. Whether you consider it "strong" or not is entirely irrelevant, as you are untrained in the field, and have demonstrated yourself to have no great understanding even of how the scientific method works, let alone biology.

I won't go to you for opinions on what classes evidence or not for the same reason I wouldn't go to you to engineer a plane that'd fly, or to develop a vaccine. You aren't trained for it, and your layman's opinion is not equal to those who've actually studied this.

I actually read the links you posted on the fossil record. Listing a few dozen or even hundreds of transitional forms does not conclusive evidence make. The explanation can easily be that these were different animals.

You could say that. Many creationists do, although they disagree among themselves on where those species lines form, but that's not surprising, since they- like you- are just being obstinate because your pet beliefs are being challenged, rather than thinking this through on any serious level. But your ill educated bleating is of no consequence.

You see, we can observe speciation today, we can engineer it under laboratory conditions and see new species form in the wild too. Because of this absolutely confirmed biological fact, you are making the claim that in the past there was something preventing this from happening, in the face of all the genetic and observable evidence there is. Thus, you bear a burden of proof, and just blindly asserting based on no evidence at all that "they could be separate organisms!" doesn't go anywhere near demonstrating that.

You think they're separate species. Fine. Why do you think that, and why should any of us care what you think on this issue?

What would be conclusive evidence (99%) is what we don't see--organisms with small changes into a totally new one.

You mean like Tiktaalik Rosae, the fish that's developing tetrapod feet? Or modern day whales, manatees and so on, with the bone structure of a foot disappearing into their flippers?

You didn't research this at all before you made this claim, did you?

Nor do we see organisms with strange appendages that would later become something. We don't see organism with organs that are not fully functional. The predictive powers of evolution in the fossil record fall well short of your 99%

You literally do not understand evolution. Not only that, you're now contradicting your own claims: just a minute ago you were demanding that every fossil we see is just a separate species and now, after defining them all as not related, you're chastizing us for not having connective bridges between species. What a completely dishonest argument.

Moreover, in evolutionary terms, every organism is "complete," in that it's suited for whatever task its ecological niche requires it to fill. The reason we don't see so many creatures with incomplete organs and so on is, simply, that evolution doesn't say that's what we'd see, and to claim that it does just shows that... well, you're ignorant on this subject. In an evolutionary framework useless organs and features are costly, they're a negative that would often see the creature possessing them selected out of the gene pool, rather than the reverse. The creatures that get selected for would have used for their "incomplete" parts, like gliding animals with their incomplete wings. And don't insult my intelligence by defining gliders as "complete," because you could do that by fiat for any example I cared to mention. Don't be dishonest.

PS: we actually do have plenty of animals with useless organs even now, that are references to their evolutionary lineage. There are still species of snake with little stubby legs that don't do anything, as their slithering body shape is still something they're evolving into. Mud skippers have little fin hands, as they're still evolving into amphibianism. The aforementioned manatees still have the bone structure for hooves in their flippers, because they're still evolving their flippers right, from their ungulate ancestry. They're still complete animals, but we can see the shift in their anatomy.

In the area of genetics, we have some orphaned genes that show up out of nowhere. You have groups of genes showing up in branches of organisms where the theory predicts they should not be. The counter argument is "look at all the common genes" or "see the junk DNA from older organisms". Some common genes are expected for all living things. We are finding uses for junk DNA so that is certainly not in the 99% range of proof. When you draw out the genetic tree of life, you get convoluted connections that don't make sense. Genetics is certainly not the conclusive proof that evolutionist thought it would be.

Argument from ignorance: "We don't know everything about this, therefore the things we can glean from this can't be right." Could you lay off the fallacies for a single goddamn post?

In micro-biology, we are finding that things are more complicated than they seemed to be (actually a better phrase would be mind-boggling complicated). How did DNA evolve? How did a cell evolve? How do GRNs evolve? Do you honestly think we know within your 99%?

Nobody said we knew everything. But of the body of knowledge we currently have, the vast majority of it points to, and is concordant with, evolution, whereas very little contradicts it. I'm sorry that doesn't match up with your childish fantasies of absolute certainty or nothing, but science isn't obligated to follow the obscenely high level of skepticism that you reserve solely for things you don't agree with.

The origin of life challenges, the first domino in this chain of events, is a massive mystery. Does that fit into the 99% certainty or is that a separate issue? Because it is a necessary ingredient and proving that life could come from non-life would be an immense proof that all this could have happened.

Abiogenesis is not germane to this discussion, as we are discussing evolution and common ancestry, not the origins of life. For more information on life coming from non life, I suggest you start at the Miller-Yurey experiments, where it was demonstrated that the building blocks of organic material can in fact come from non-organic material.

Has there been enough time for all the necessary mutations to occur, accumulate, and evolve all the necessary organisms?

Yes.

What is the rate of beneficial mutations?

That very much depends on the context you find yourself in when you possess any given mutation.

Is there are flaw in thinking that minute random mutations accumulate toward a beneficial end--getting "selected by the organism even though there is no immediate functional value or is it more probably that mutations that are not of immediate beneficial use are corrected, selected out, or die off. To make this even more complicated, multiple mutations are needed in multiple genes to effect even the first step in the chain to make a beneficial change--requiring an exponential amount of time, during which the organism has to keep around genetic material of no immediate use. While I am not a scientist, this does not sound like 99% certainty.

First of all, mutations that are neutral can also be selected for; the only criteria for keeping a mutation in the gene pool in some form or another is that it isn't harmful enough to be fatal to those that possess it. Second of all, you're assuming that each step in the chain of mutations from one thing to another would not be helpful in themselves, that each individual mutation is completely useless up until they reach that "final" mutation where it all clicks together. That's ludicrous; there are plenty of examples of initial simple mutations being modified and increasing in complexity over time, with each stage being beneficial or neutral to the host. Hell, the human eye began as a patch of light sensitive cells!

Seriously, you're not actually fact checking before you make these claims, are you?

Regarding the article, you want to give the impression that these people are uneducated hacks.

Not at all. Some of them have more degrees than I do. But none of them have degrees in biology, which makes them completely unsuitable to discuss it in any in depth manner. For exactly the same reason that you don't go to a plumber when you want medical advice; they just don't have the training.

The author of the article is irrelevant, but the content was useful to show the relationship between the original paper by Wilf and Ewens and the subsequent paper citing major flaws in it.

The authorship of the paper is very much relevant: you're asking me to believe that the opinions on biology of four people with no training in that subject are more informed than the professional opinions and careers of ninety seven percent of actual trained biologists. I'm not willing to make that leap, and I'm absolutely dumbfounded that you are.

The paper was mainly about the math that Wilf and Ewens used and therefore would require understanding mathematics as it applies to biology--which the authors were perfectly qualified to do:

No: if you're going to talk about math and biology, but only have expertise in math, then you're missing out fifty percent of the expertise you need.

Ann Gauger received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

And then she sold out the very basis of her scientific credibility when she went to work for an organization that requires her to accept a position as true before examination of the evidence, and in spite of evidence to the contrary. Can you honestly not see that a person employed to begin her investigations with the position that life is designed, and nothing can change that, is biased?

If I gave you a source that literally said, right at the beginning, that the authors presupposed that evolution was true, and will disregard all evidence to the contrary, would you take that source seriously? No? Then why are you asking that we do differently?

William A. Dembski has a whole bunch of degrees including postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University and a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago.

Yes, he's a mathematician, not a biologist. I don't care what he thinks about biology, which is what evolution is. Moreover, he draws his employment from an organization that has in its charter a commitment to "defeating" evolution. Does that not seem like a bias to you?

Moreover, don't you think it's incredibly hypocritical of you to complain that secular scientists won't even consider creation, and then to turn around and cite sources that literally state proudly that they won't even consider evolution, and will manipulate political organizations in order to "defeat" evolution regardless of its factual merit? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

The other two have degrees in engineering, computers and/or mathematics.

So I'll trust their opinions on engineering, computing and mathematics quite readily. But not on biology. They aren't trained for that.

[Jenny A]

@Esquilax
<snip>You think it is a fact because in your worldview, there is absolutely no conceivable alternative. I am pointing out that the "facts" do not disprove my worldview.

The fact is that the vast, vast majority of experts in the fields of biology, paleontology, genetic research, medicine, etc. have looked at the evidence in their fields of expertise and found what they consider to be overwhelming evidence of evolution. The theory is also accepted by the vast majority of scientists working in other fields. You keep pulling up self-published and non-peer reviewed articles from the extra-ordinary small minority of scientist who disagree.

The sources you choose say it all. You won't accept any alternative to intelligent design, unless there is no scientist, regardless of specialty, who disagrees with evolution. If that's where you set the bar, no one will ever change your mind because there are always one or two crazies out there in any field.

For example there are scientists who disbelieve in the lunar landings including William L. Brian, a nuclear engineer. He self-published a book about it: Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program. Should we waste time reading it? There are also historians who deny the holocaust including David Hoggan and Harry Elmer Barnes. Should we read their books?