There you go, folks - VIVA la Inquisition, EXUANT la science. Mind you, I don’t pay for the site, I’m only a guest. Regards.

So far, your contribution to science has been minimal at best. Your deleted posting was just content-less. I have limits to my patience my dear Christian friend.

In Christ.

In closing, I noticed that Pim van Meurs conveniently dodged the second example of thorns in nature, that being the honey locust tree.

Tone down your rhetoric. I did not dodge the second example, I focused on the first example and found it lacking in logic and scientific support.

If Alden is, as it seems, unable to address the scientific arguments and instead insists on an ad hoc ‘id’ explanation then fine but he should not make the claim that evolutionary theory cannot explain thorns on Datura Stramonium fruits.

According to scientific studies conducted at the Plant Physiology department in Brussels, Belgium

I am looking forward to the exact citation: Journal, volume, authors, title etc.

Could you also present the research that showed that the research I presented relating to alkaloid content of seeds was erroneous?

So much for Pim’s lame attempt at claiming the seeds pose a small risk of lethality and thus no DESIGNER would ever have encased the seed pod with thorns, as a deterrent.

This of course misrepresents my argument since the lethality of the seeds is of no real relevance to the evolutionary pathways I did present. My observation was that contrary to your claim, evidence suggested that the seeds were free from alkaloids, something which the research suggests. Immature seeds do indeed contain a high level of alkaloids, however for mature seeds, this question seems hardly that self evident. I know that there are various sites that make the claim about the seeds, but there is often no supporting articles cited for their claims and the few articles that did look at the alkaloid content, found, contrary to these ‘facts’ that seeds contain far less alkaloids at the mature stage.

But as I said, this is a minor issue and I am more than willing to grant you that the seeds are indeed poisonous as it in no way affect the evolutionary explanations.

After all my argument is not what Alden pretends it to be.

I found another interesting table (see appended table end of my main posting)

The obtained results demonstrate that atropine and scopolamine contents depend on both the plant part considered and the stage of plant growth. In young plants, maximum atropine content was found in leaves of medium surface, while highest scopolamine content was observed in the apical leaves. According to many authors [1,3-5,17,18], in leaves of young D. stramonium plants scopolamine content is higher than that of atropine. On the contrary, in our samples, atropine was always the principal alkaloid, scopolamine content decreasing at the increase of leaf surface.

Source: Elisabetta Miraldi, Distribution of hyoscyamine and scopolamine in Datura stramonium, Fitoterapia 72 (2001) pp 644-648

While I understand Alden’s attempt to claim, not argue through logic, that ID is right and evolutionary theory is wrong, he fails to show an understanding of the issues related to evolutionary theory, which he seems to reject but not understand.

For instance

Joseph Alden wrote:3.) Next, Pim uses the following contradiction in logic, by stating ” In other words, ecology and molecular biology all need to work together to establish answers to these questions.” This easily exposes yet another fallacy of evolutionary theory. Lord Charles said that there is no arrow, no purpose, and no guiding principles, within the theory of evolution. To achieve any utility of function in nature, denotes a purpose. Why then the claim by Pim, that everything needs to be working in perfect, structured order, for these beneficial mutations to all miraculously take place. Reason ? Structured order equals Intelligent Design.

Since evolutionary theory is based on function, Alden has discovered that which scientists have been saying all the time, namely that evolution is teleological, although it is not a final cause teleology but rather an internal teleology. So when Darwin stated that there is no arrow, he was obviously not talking about function since function is what he claimed his theory selects for. So if it was not function, what did Darwin mean by no purpose. For that it is up to Alden to show how Darwin makes his claims of ‘no purpose’.

For instance

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Charles Darwin

It is clear that Darwin in this context is not talking about function but rather about what Ayala describes so well as external teleology rather than bounded teleology.

In fact Alden has exposed why ID fails, namely function is considered sufficient as a specification to determine specified complexity, thus anything with function which we do not yet understand is argued to be complex and specified and thus designed. But since natural selection results in function, natural selection cannot be excluded as the ‘designer’.

I am glad that Alden exemplifies the scientific vacuity of ID when he shares with us his deep ignorance of the science involved.

Sad really but I have found such ignorance to be the foundation of many ID creationist’s arguments, in this case it seems not much better.

In Christ

My sincere thanks for posting this blog. After reading your diatribe above, it’s now obvious that your intended consequences have since backfired. Your attempt at ” exposing ” ID, should instead read ” Intelligent Design now VALIDATED. ” A quick outline and thus a dismantling of your bogus rebuttal.

1.) Pim says IDers have a flawed understanding of evolutionary theory. ( a common defense.) Incorrect. We comprehend the ” theory ” quite well. It’s the claims of TOE, that we thus reject outright. To say we IDers ” just don’t understand basic biology, blah, blah, blah,” is a common tactic used by all evos-inbreds, when they can no longer support their own arguments. The theory of neo-darwinism is a belief system. It’s faith - based on counter theories, like co-evolution, parallel evolution, monster mutations, punctuated equilibrium & a host of other nonsensical fairy tales. In other words, it’s a religion.

2.) Pim states that ” One may very well conclude that the Designer surely had a wide range of applications in mind, while creating these drugs ” ( i.e. those found in Datura stramonium ) The implication here is the Creator is somehow misguided, in allowing toxins to be present within our universe. Quite the contrary. According to Pim’s Christian God, which he claims to believe in, mankind is given the responsibility of free will, to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, benefit and detriment, etc. What again are the components, of these potential toxins? Do they possibly serve any beneficial purpose ? Yes. Atropine, hyoscyamine and scopolamine are all listed as controlled substances and are utilized by the medical profession to treat a variety of conditions: as an antidote to combat nerve agents, to treat heart problems, for ophthalmic used by eye doctors, to treat stomach disorders and much more. Another example from nature, is found in the beneficial use of morphine. It’s prescribed by hospitals around the world, for pain relief. It comes from opium, which is derived from poppy plants. Gosh, you mean there are plants that exist in nature, which contain beneficial uses, yet also have potentially deadly consequences ? Wow. Thus, for Pim to claim that he can’t understand the thought process of the Designer, only exposes his own ignorance. That’s why the Creator is given respect as the Intelligent Designer, not the Pim Designer.

3.) Next, Pim uses the following contradiction in logic, by stating ” In other words, ecology and molecular biology all need to work together to establish answers to these questions.” This easily exposes yet another fallacy of evolutionary theory. Lord Charles said that there is no arrow, no purpose, and no guiding principles, within the theory of evolution. To achieve any utility of function in nature, denotes a purpose. Why then the claim by Pim, that everything needs to be working in perfect, structured order, for these beneficial mutations to all miraculously take place. Reason ? Structured order equals Intelligent Design.

4.) Pim then uses flawed research, which has since been discredited, that was conducted in Garmsar, Iran. Those studies of Datura stramonium were conducted under laboratory conditions. Jimson weed grows in the wild, and thrives on highly organic soil. Pim’s table from the Garmsar research attempts to show that the seeds product a very low amount of tropane alkaloids. Once again, this is false. For brevity, I’ll present the following quotes, from a variety of research centers. According to scientific studies conducted at the Plant Physiology department in Brussels, Belgium; “… the level of alkaloid compounds within Datura stramonium, are affected by the amount of nitrogen present in the soil. Highly organic matter can cause a spike in all toxic components, namely the SEEDS. Other references of note : University of Pittsburgh, School of Pathology, study titled - Final Diagnosis - Jimson Weed Toxicity, states ” The highest alkaloid content is often found in the seeds ( 0.4%)” Plus, Purdue University’s Plant research center for animal medicine states ” The Seeds of the Datura stramonium, provide the greatest risk of alkaloid toxicity, from animal ingestion.” Plus, the West Virginia Poison Control Centers study that found ” The SEEDS pose the GREATEST risk of alkaloid poisoning.” plus the US Centers for Disease Control- Study on Jimson Weed poisoning- states ” Although all parts of the plant are toxic, the highest concentration of tropane alkaloids are present in the SEEDS.” I rest my case. So much for Pim’s lame attempt at claiming the seeds pose a small risk of lethality and thus no DESIGNER would ever have encased the seed pod with thorns, as a deterrent.

5.) In Pim’s conclusion, he enforces the concept of evolutionary theory, being nothing more than a belief system. He states ” … it is not difficult to IMAGINE how trichome defenses initially evolved ….” Imagine ? We must now use our imagination Pim, to accept the flawed theories of evolution ? Imagination is code for evos-science fiction, Pim.
By default, you have just provided even more proof for the validity of Intelligent Design.

6.) In closing, I noticed that Pim van Meurs conveniently dodged the second example of thorns in nature, that being the honey locust tree. This is obviously based on yet additional flawed data often promoted by evos-inbreds, most notably featured in the book by Connie Barlow titled ” The Ghosts of Evolution.” This compilation of fairy tales has long since been discredited. It provides no validity to scientific research. It was merely written for entertainment purposes. Can you say science-fiction ? The whole argument for thorns having evolved on the trunk of the honey locust tree, as a deterrent to mastodons, is simply comical.
The evos rant, for thorns existing in nature, presents even more questions than it answers. If the locust tree developed these thorns as a deterrent, why didn’t all the other trees simply grow thorns, to protect their nuts and fruits and vegetation from the destruction of animals ? OR, If it instinctively developed these mutations, it could just as easily have since discarded them, since the mastodon is now extinct. ( No wait, the flawed evos logic only works one way. ) In addition, how does ANY plant know that a thorn will cause a negative sensory reaction in its prodding of an animal ? Plants KNEW that a point on the tip of a thorn, generates a pain reaction in a mastodon ? This is simply a BOGUS belief system. Finally, the back of Barlow’s book is credited by none other than Carl Zimmer, aka the non-scientist. Zimmer wrote his own book titled ” Evolution, The triumph of an Idea.” What ? an IDEA ? Wait, evolution is not based on scientific proof, no validity, and no real research ? Its foundation is simply an IDEA ? Wait, I think I’ve got it. It’s based on a concept, not proven scientific principles. It’s a belief system, …. like religion. Now I get it.

Intelligent Design is thus now validated. Thorns in nature exist for a distinct purpose. They are not simply based on random mutations, or genetic drift, or co-evolution or any other fairy tale theory used to support the evos-inbred, propaganda machine.

Then we could talk about the horses, a lineage so beautiful, of clearly distinct organisms, which appeared without hesitation, in full variety.

We of course could talk about this the way PBH describes but we would be fooling ourselves and others.

Or we could look at the in a more scientific manner Horse Evolution
by Kathleen Hunt

Give an indisputable example. I’ll be here, waiting. Keep in mind, though, that palaeontologists utilize the fossil record of the biosphere to accurately chart time surfaces in rock strata, and some of the “markers” are sudden appearances of a particular new species. (Disappearances, and abrupt changes in abundance, are more commonly employed as time markers.)

There are excellent reasons why the fossil record is expected to be incomplete in some cases, however, despite the expected incompleteness, science has been able to uncover both fossil and genetic data that show that these ’sudden’ appearances took place over millions of years or more, linking back to another common ancestor.
Even the oft touted Cambrian explosion can be quite well explained by simple Darwinian principles, as Valentine has argued in his book “the Origin of Phyla”. And yet, creationists still quote Valentine to support their foolish view of the Cambrian.

As the excellent resource at Talkorigins points out

The fossil evidence that contributed to that consensus is summarized in the rest of this FAQ. What they’re arguing about is how often it occurs gradually. You can make up your own mind about that. (As a starting point, check out Gingerich, 1980, who found 24 gradual speciations and 14 sudden appearances in early Eocene mammals; MacFadden, 1985, who found 5 cases of gradual anagenesis, 5 cases of probable cladogenesis, and 6 sudden appearances in fossil horses; and the numerous papers in Chaline, 1983. Most studies that I’ve read find between 1/4-2/3 of the speciations occurring fairly gradually.)

Source: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 1A by Kathleen Hunt

blood descent evolution is inexplicable. Tell us the chain of events, by which species A changed to species B, under blood descent.

What do you mean by ‘blood descent’ evolution. Speciation however is observed, where two species diverge due to a variety of possible causes.

See Observed Instances of Speciation by Joseph Boxhorn and Some More Observed Speciation Events by Chris Stassen

Contrary to PBH’s empty claims, evolutionary theory is quite able to explain the fact of common descent.