[I think all of the papers I linked to are available in full, so you might look again, if you want them all. Check the left and right margins for the PDF links.]
I've also been meaning to read the arguments and decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover. However, from what I've read so far, I get the impression that the defense team was borderline incompetent.
The testimony is freely available and is an educational but fairly easy read, since it is intended for a more general audience. I was especially impressed by the testimony of Dr. Padian. The defense recruited who they thought were the most distinguished ID proponents, though a few did not appear due to disagreements, but still, I think those that did take the stand failed to provide solid scientific evidence for ID, which was a serious deficit given that the goal was to allow ID into science classes. Reasonable people could disagree whether the legal team took a bad approach or faltered due to internal squabbling, but I think it is reasonable to conclude that the scientific arguments for ID failed to impress. Over the years since, basically every example Behe proposed for irreducible complexity and the inability of evolution to produce new genes/information and new functions was reasonably refuted, with the classic example being the bacterial flagellum. Here is one more recent disagreement with an argument from Behe's latest book (with lots of technical details and references): http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html
We can't assume that the majority has exclusive access to the truth, but nevertheless Behe's own academic department has a statement on the their main homepage about his ideas (see the left column): http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/ I've never seen a similar statement on any university department's web site, so I think it is safe to assume this isn't just a minor disagreement, but the result of someone completely lacking any hint of support from his colleagues. From what I've heard, many of the faculty members are quite embarrassed. This doesn't necessarily make him wrong, but it is something to consider.
However, obviously, the vast majority of human beings have not studied comparative cellular biology or genetics in any detail.
Sadly, you are correct that most people have limited scientific exposure. In general, belief in evolution (and atheism) in the US correlates with increasing levels of academic education (undergraduate degree, graduate degree, National Academy of Science, etc.), though medical doctors (not PhDs!) are a notable exception in the area of atheism. One explanation for this trend is that more educated people are better prepared to make reasoned decisions based on the current evidence, but others say that the secular educational system is brainwashing people. Given the traditional emphasis on education in Jewish culture, I'm not surprised to see evolution acceptance fairly high there.
Moreover, assuming that God exists, one can't really say that He didn't give us enough compelling proof of Himself, seeing how the vast majority of human beings do in fact believe.
I'd be careful here, since "God" has a strong Judeo-Christian connotation, and the vast majority of humans are not Christians/Jews (and an even smaller percentage of all humans that have ever lived). Popular support for a notion is a limited form of evidence, I'd prefer a meritocracy of ideas, where the ones supported by the best evidence survive. I don't want membership numbers to determine which of the many religions or non-religions is more likely to be correct/true (and I assume you'd agree). Current growth rates predict that Islam will become more popular than Christia
The video doesn't cover all of the details of the research since it is a high-level summary, but a more detailed description of the chromosome merger is in the section "Segmental duplications" in the original research paper here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html The paper covers some methods how the merger could have have happened via genetic mutations and duplications, though some technical knowledge of genetics is assumed. More detailed theories concerning the exact temporal order and extent of the mutations and duplications are contained in the earlier research here: http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/11/1651 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525
Dr. Miller was an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover ID trial, so I think he knows the arguments on both sides of the ID debate fairly well. Dr. Miller's main point in that lecture segment was that that evolutionary theory predicted the merging of a chromosome, and later we seem to have found the location in human DNA where the merging occurred when compared to ape chromosomes. He is trying to counter the argument that it is not possible that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor because we have different numbers of chromosomes, or because evolution can not create new species, etc. So this segment of the lecture is more pro-evolution than completely anti-ID. Much of the rest of the lecture (if you locate the full version) is what I would call anti-ID, though. He generally disapproves of ID books such as "Of Pandas and People" and groups like Answers in Genesis that he believes are also trying to push ID as thinly veiled creationism and he does not agree with the "irreducible complexity" ID arguments. You can view the full lecture and decide for yourself if his arguments counter the specific version of ID you have in mind, or if you think some versions of ID are immune to his criticisms, but be aware he is specifically talking about ID as it is being argued in Pennsylvania and Ohio by those wanting to integrate ID into science classes, and he would likely have other arguments against other variants of ID.
There are certainly ID proponents that believe in common ancestry (Michael Behe is one of those), but also believe that, for example, a supernatural being guides evolution, instead of unguided genetic mutations and natural selection alone. But keep in mind that about half of Americans do not believe in human evolution of any kind, and instead think that that a supernatural being created humans basically as they exist today. In effect, there are hundreds of millions of people that reject common ancestry, so Dr. Miller certainly has some people that he could try to convince with his arguments, even if some ID proponents do not need to be convinced of this specific point. That said, many scientists would note that it is a little odd that a supernatural being would create a world where life comes into being, but do so using a method that ends up making it very uncertain whether or not any supernatural being is even necessary. The view that common ancestry and evolution are true but that a supernatural being guides evolution may also be largely indistinguishable from materialistic evolution, though some people like Behe claim statistical methods and science can prove that random genetic mutations are not sufficient to drive evolution (though he is in the scientific minority on this topic). I'm happy to let Dr. Behe and others continue their ID research, but I don't expect much real evidence to come out of it, myself. To each their own.
> See Correlation does not imply causation. Not a wonder why biologists aren't logicians.
Note that I said "supports the assertion", not implying any kind of proof. Science isn't about absolute proofs, but instead is about formulating and testing theories that explain evidence. If it was a few hundred or thousand genes, maybe it wouldn't be worth noting, but this is millions of genes predicted to be found many years ago by biologists who noted the "missing" chromosome in humans and determined, based on evolutionary theory, that we would eventually find out where two chromosomes merged. Lo and behold, we found the exact merging location a couple of years ago. Such is the predictive power of good scientific theories. Good predictions aren't proof, but they certainly are evidence.
> Citing YouTube? That's classic. The wustl.edu reference is better... Why don't you try to find a few papers from Google Scholar?
You are attacking the location of the material rather than the content. In case you didn't follow the link, it is a video of Ken Miller, who is a well-respected (Christian) biologist at Brown. It is a short lecture designed to be comprehensible to anyone about the merging process of human chromosome 2, but if you prefer technical details here is the original research for you including a link form Google scholar: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=6874304214138842665
This paper was written by over 100 scientists collaborating at ~10 research institutions, peer reviewed, and accepted in one of the most respected science journals on the planet.
Maybe you think that genetic mutations can only result in less-adapted organisms. Though most mutations are either benign or harmful, some definitely are helpful to the organism, but often in complex ways that involve tradeoffs. For example, many Mediterranean and African people have genes that that give them resistance to malaria, but the downside is that same genetic gene also makes sickle cell disease more common, so there is a reason such a mutation is not as common in areas where malaria was not as serious a problem. For more information, see here: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673602082739/abstract http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&cluster=7405924406367694750
Since the bible is full of great wisdom, let me quote a couple of my favorites that they may not teach in Sunday school:
Mandatory Killing for the Gas Station Attendant Who Works Weekends in Exodus 35:2: "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."
Slavery is OK, but only is the slaves are foreign from Leviticus 25:44: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-- you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."
> That's what programmers call "code reuse." Did you know that Windows and Mac OS X share some BSD code?
I'm not sure your example makes your case. Very large sequences (hundreds of thousands of sequences) of nearly exactly matching code/DNA in two programs/species certainly supports the assertion that the two had the same original source. Some people say this original source is a supernatural being that just happened to make things that look like they evolved, but most scientists will instead assert the original source is instead a common genetic ancestor, especially when things like the comments/junk-DNA match.
> I would be interested to read more about how two chromosomes can merge in the reproduction process. Doesn't it usually cause deficiency like color blindness?
Please see my other comment here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=340087&pid=21124249, where I explained this in detail, including several references. Very often, mutations cause defective organisms, but not in all cases.
> Please, talkorigins is hogwash, and they counter straw-man argument with more straw-man arguments.
You would help your case if you backed up your assertions with some specific evidence.
I can only assume you don't know how chromosomes are configured and processed for duplication during mitosis. For two chromosomes to merge, it only takes a few base pair changes in the chromosome that used to code a stop/end sequence (called a telomere) but now code for the chromosome to continue. Basically, the marker that signals the end of the chromosome gets corrupted. The fact that this scrambling occurred isn't that rare - the amazing part of this is that the organism that this mutation produced was likely better adapted than the original one. By their unguided nature, most mutations result in either no changes (because they happen in the unused "junk" DNA) or more poorly adapted (or dead!) organisms, but a few mutations actually help the species, and those organisms survive preferentially (i.e natural selection). If you are interested in the scientific details, feel free to have a look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/5045.html
From the above information, you'll find that there are large parts of those merged chromosomes inside you and I that are largely junk/unused DNA in us, but still survive fairly unscathed and continue to mirror those of the original primate chromosomes.
"I don't have a problem with the scientific method. However Evolution isn't PART of the scientific method, because it hasn't predicted ANYTHING."
Evolution has made thousands of correct predictions, that for example, life evolves and fans out in slow, gradual steps, and the fossil record unearthed since the time of Darwin and the discovery of DNA as the agent of inheritance backs this up, without a doubt. Also, new structures evolve slowly from old structures, such as the bones of the ear. Did you know the same light-sensitive compounds that power the eye of a jellyfish are also present in your eye? And the striking similarities in the embryonic development of genetically related species (and even not-so-closely related ones). And that humans have one less chromosome than our ape ancestors, which was recently found to happen because two chromosomes merged into during the development of homo sapiens. Evolution predicts and fits with all of our current knowledge about life on earth, even if it manages to offend your religious sensibilities. Anyone who doesn't believe this has not looked honestly at the current scientific evidence, for example as laid out here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Slashdot Mirror
The testimony is freely available and is an educational but fairly easy read, since it is intended for a more general audience. I was especially impressed by the testimony of Dr. Padian. The defense recruited who they thought were the most distinguished ID proponents, though a few did not appear due to disagreements, but still, I think those that did take the stand failed to provide solid scientific evidence for ID, which was a serious deficit given that the goal was to allow ID into science classes. Reasonable people could disagree whether the legal team took a bad approach or faltered due to internal squabbling, but I think it is reasonable to conclude that the scientific arguments for ID failed to impress. Over the years since, basically every example Behe proposed for irreducible complexity and the inability of evolution to produce new genes/information and new functions was reasonably refuted, with the classic example being the bacterial flagellum. Here is one more recent disagreement with an argument from Behe's latest book (with lots of technical details and references):
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html
We can't assume that the majority has exclusive access to the truth, but nevertheless Behe's own academic department has a statement on the their main homepage about his ideas (see the left column):
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/
I've never seen a similar statement on any university department's web site, so I think it is safe to assume this isn't just a minor disagreement, but the result of someone completely lacking any hint of support from his colleagues. From what I've heard, many of the faculty members are quite embarrassed. This doesn't necessarily make him wrong, but it is something to consider.
Sadly, you are correct that most people have limited scientific exposure. In general, belief in evolution (and atheism) in the US correlates with increasing levels of academic education (undergraduate degree, graduate degree, National Academy of Science, etc.), though medical doctors (not PhDs!) are a notable exception in the area of atheism. One explanation for this trend is that more educated people are better prepared to make reasoned decisions based on the current evidence, but others say that the secular educational system is brainwashing people. Given the traditional emphasis on education in Jewish culture, I'm not surprised to see evolution acceptance fairly high there.
I'd be careful here, since "God" has a strong Judeo-Christian connotation, and the vast majority of humans are not Christians/Jews (and an even smaller percentage of all humans that have ever lived). Popular support for a notion is a limited form of evidence, I'd prefer a meritocracy of ideas, where the ones supported by the best evidence survive. I don't want membership numbers to determine which of the many religions or non-religions is more likely to be correct/true (and I assume you'd agree). Current growth rates predict that Islam will become more popular than Christia
The video doesn't cover all of the details of the research since it is a high-level summary, but a more detailed description of the chromosome merger is in the section "Segmental duplications" in the original research paper here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html
The paper covers some methods how the merger could have have happened via genetic mutations and duplications, though some technical knowledge of genetics is assumed. More detailed theories concerning the exact temporal order and extent of the mutations and duplications are contained in the earlier research here:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/11/1651
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525
Dr. Miller was an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover ID trial, so I think he knows the arguments on both sides of the ID debate fairly well. Dr. Miller's main point in that lecture segment was that that evolutionary theory predicted the merging of a chromosome, and later we seem to have found the location in human DNA where the merging occurred when compared to ape chromosomes. He is trying to counter the argument that it is not possible that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor because we have different numbers of chromosomes, or because evolution can not create new species, etc. So this segment of the lecture is more pro-evolution than completely anti-ID. Much of the rest of the lecture (if you locate the full version) is what I would call anti-ID, though. He generally disapproves of ID books such as "Of Pandas and People" and groups like Answers in Genesis that he believes are also trying to push ID as thinly veiled creationism and he does not agree with the "irreducible complexity" ID arguments. You can view the full lecture and decide for yourself if his arguments counter the specific version of ID you have in mind, or if you think some versions of ID are immune to his criticisms, but be aware he is specifically talking about ID as it is being argued in Pennsylvania and Ohio by those wanting to integrate ID into science classes, and he would likely have other arguments against other variants of ID.
There are certainly ID proponents that believe in common ancestry (Michael Behe is one of those), but also believe that, for example, a supernatural being guides evolution, instead of unguided genetic mutations and natural selection alone. But keep in mind that about half of Americans do not believe in human evolution of any kind, and instead think that that a supernatural being created humans basically as they exist today. In effect, there are hundreds of millions of people that reject common ancestry, so Dr. Miller certainly has some people that he could try to convince with his arguments, even if some ID proponents do not need to be convinced of this specific point. That said, many scientists would note that it is a little odd that a supernatural being would create a world where life comes into being, but do so using a method that ends up making it very uncertain whether or not any supernatural being is even necessary. The view that common ancestry and evolution are true but that a supernatural being guides evolution may also be largely indistinguishable from materialistic evolution, though some people like Behe claim statistical methods and science can prove that random genetic mutations are not sufficient to drive evolution (though he is in the scientific minority on this topic). I'm happy to let Dr. Behe and others continue their ID research, but I don't expect much real evidence to come out of it, myself. To each their own.
> See Correlation does not imply causation. Not a wonder why biologists aren't logicians.
... Why don't you try to find a few papers from Google Scholar?
Note that I said "supports the assertion", not implying any kind of proof. Science isn't about absolute proofs, but instead is about formulating and testing theories that explain evidence. If it was a few hundred or thousand genes, maybe it wouldn't be worth noting, but this is millions of genes predicted to be found many years ago by biologists who noted the "missing" chromosome in humans and determined, based on evolutionary theory, that we would eventually find out where two chromosomes merged. Lo and behold, we found the exact merging location a couple of years ago. Such is the predictive power of good scientific theories. Good predictions aren't proof, but they certainly are evidence.
> Citing YouTube? That's classic. The wustl.edu reference is better
You are attacking the location of the material rather than the content. In case you didn't follow the link, it is a video of Ken Miller, who is a well-respected (Christian) biologist at Brown. It is a short lecture designed to be comprehensible to anyone about the merging process of human chromosome 2, but if you prefer technical details here is the original research for you including a link form Google scholar:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=6874304214138842665
This paper was written by over 100 scientists collaborating at ~10 research institutions, peer reviewed, and accepted in one of the most respected science journals on the planet.
Maybe you think that genetic mutations can only result in less-adapted organisms. Though most mutations are either benign or harmful, some definitely are helpful to the organism, but often in complex ways that involve tradeoffs. For example, many Mediterranean and African people have genes that that give them resistance to malaria, but the downside is that same genetic gene also makes sickle cell disease more common, so there is a reason such a mutation is not as common in areas where malaria was not as serious a problem. For more information, see here:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673602082739/abstract
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&cluster=7405924406367694750
Since the bible is full of great wisdom, let me quote a couple of my favorites that they may not teach in Sunday school:
Mandatory Killing for the Gas Station Attendant Who Works Weekends in Exodus 35:2:
"For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."
Slavery is OK, but only is the slaves are foreign from Leviticus 25:44:
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-- you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."
> That's what programmers call "code reuse." Did you know that Windows and Mac OS X share some BSD code?
I'm not sure your example makes your case. Very large sequences (hundreds of thousands of sequences) of nearly exactly matching code/DNA in two programs/species certainly supports the assertion that the two had the same original source. Some people say this original source is a supernatural being that just happened to make things that look like they evolved, but most scientists will instead assert the original source is instead a common genetic ancestor, especially when things like the comments/junk-DNA match.
> I would be interested to read more about how two chromosomes can merge in the reproduction process. Doesn't it usually cause deficiency like color blindness?
Please see my other comment here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=340087&pid=21124249, where I explained this in detail, including several references. Very often, mutations cause defective organisms, but not in all cases.
> Please, talkorigins is hogwash, and they counter straw-man argument with more straw-man arguments.
You would help your case if you backed up your assertions with some specific evidence.
I can only assume you don't know how chromosomes are configured and processed for duplication during mitosis. For two chromosomes to merge, it only takes a few base pair changes in the chromosome that used to code a stop/end sequence (called a telomere) but now code for the chromosome to continue. Basically, the marker that signals the end of the chromosome gets corrupted. The fact that this scrambling occurred isn't that rare - the amazing part of this is that the organism that this mutation produced was likely better adapted than the original one. By their unguided nature, most mutations result in either no changes (because they happen in the unused "junk" DNA) or more poorly adapted (or dead!) organisms, but a few mutations actually help the species, and those organisms survive preferentially (i.e natural selection). If you are interested in the scientific details, feel free to have a look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/5045.html
From the above information, you'll find that there are large parts of those merged chromosomes inside you and I that are largely junk/unused DNA in us, but still survive fairly unscathed and continue to mirror those of the original primate chromosomes.
"I don't have a problem with the scientific method. However Evolution isn't PART of the scientific method, because it hasn't predicted ANYTHING."
Evolution has made thousands of correct predictions, that for example, life evolves and fans out in slow, gradual steps, and the fossil record unearthed since the time of Darwin and the discovery of DNA as the agent of inheritance backs this up, without a doubt. Also, new structures evolve slowly from old structures, such as the bones of the ear. Did you know the same light-sensitive compounds that power the eye of a jellyfish are also present in your eye? And the striking similarities in the embryonic development of genetically related species (and even not-so-closely related ones). And that humans have one less chromosome than our ape ancestors, which was recently found to happen because two chromosomes merged into during the development of homo sapiens. Evolution predicts and fits with all of our current knowledge about life on earth, even if it manages to offend your religious sensibilities. Anyone who doesn't believe this has not looked honestly at the current scientific evidence, for example as laid out here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/