The above is from this post of yours. You say "Maybe it is correct"..."may not be neo-Darwinian" you seem to have drawn the same conclusions as Paul Nelson.

I only have to show that you unfairly charged Paul Nelson with “dishonest quote mining”.

And that you haven't done and you aren't even in the ball park.

If the facts are calling out “look at me, look at me, I am strange and might be ID” any IDer should be able to quote from the article in Science that describes the condition.

And the article does not do that. To say that it is does is where the dishonesty part enters.

I ask; show us how neo-Darwinian evolution as the developer of “kernels” is falsifiable.

Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory would suggest that kernels are similar across species and shockingly they are.

Good show that Nelson will be back to set you right.

This says, to me, that no evolution of body plan kernels has taken place since about 500-700 million years ago.

Or very, very little. Look at the star fish and sea urchin, their kernels are very, very similar, but a little bit different, but yes, if we can agree on very, very little evolution you are correct.

Why?

You've already quoted the parts that describe why. Any failure of a gene to express in the kernel results in a catastrophic problem for the organism (i.e. death). Something that is dead cannot pass on its genetic material.

Is modification of a kernel by ordinary evolution unlikely? Yes.

You are repeating yourself.

Now I can begin to think of ID and I can write about it; if I was Paul Nelson.

No, you can't. IC structures have appeared in nature. That is the point of the link to PZ Myers. Say what you will about Myers politics, but the guy does know his biology.

And, if I was me, I could make a comment on the post of the excellent Steve.

Mr. Nelson is planning a resposne to my post. I actually look forward to it as I can't imagine how he'll try to defend his misrepresentations.

By the way, you do realize you haven't shown anything here the supports ID. For something to be IC, it isn't sufficient to show that something is highly unlikely to change from now on, but you have to show how it couldn't arise in a step-by-step process. Since you haven't even looked at any step-by-step processes you have nothing.

“…. A notable feature of the paleontological record of animal evolution is the establishment by the Early “Cambrian of virtually all phylum-level body plans. We identify a class of GRN component, the kernels" of the network, which, because of their developmental role and their particular internal structure, are most impervious to change. Conservation of phyletic body plans may have been due to the retention since pre-Cambrian time of GRN kernels,…….”

“Kernels -- the deepest levels of developmental control -- cannot vary. [I]nterference with expression of any one kernel gene will destroy kernel function altogether and is likely to produce the catastrophic phenotype of lack of the body part" (p. 796). As they explain,……..”

This says, to me, that no evolution of body plan kernels has taken place since about 500-700 million years ago. Why? Is modification of a kernel by ordinary evolution unlikely? Yes. Now I can begin to think of ID and I can write about it; if I was Paul Nelson. And, if I was me, I could make a comment on the post of the excellent Steve.

Okay you are still having problems. I'm not saying that the mechanism HAS to be neo-darwinian, but that Davidson and Ewrin clearly think it is, and for Nelson to portray it as anything else is misleading!

Steve: The bold print quotes you speak of are, again, a neo-Darwinian supposition for the creation of kernels. "..follow that these kernels must have been assembled during the initial diversification of the Bilateria and have retained their internal character since. Critically, these kernels would have formed through the same processes of evolution as affect the other components,.."

The words "must and would" indicate that the writers of this paper are more careful than you are re: atribution.

Are you having trouble reading?

Nelson illustrates the fact - through the paper by Davidson and Erwin - that there exist very complex structures (kernels) that do not function unless they are, only, in the fully formed state. So, how did they get to that state?

Davidson and Erwin state quite clearly that these kernels formed by the same process as other biological components, but once formed they put constraints on what could develop latter on. There is no need to imply something other than natural processes.

It is fair to postulate that they show evidence of the existence of complex component designs in advance of a place to put them. That is ID. This guy, Paul Nelson, is an ID proponent; how is it not a little cheeky, if not sleazy, of you to fault him for pointing at stuff that looks like ID.

They do no such thing. Read the quote I pulled from the article, the one with the italicized and bolded section.

Michael Chance,

Both Darwin’s theories of evolution and intelligent design have problems. Which is why they’re both just theories, not scientific fact (despite what many neo-Darwinists might claim).

Good God. Of course, Evolutionary Theory is just a theory. However, evolution (i.e. that things change) is an observed fact. That Evolutionary theory has "problems"--a.k.a. doesn't explain everything does not render it false or lend any credibility to ID.

You must have heard of all the evidence for evolution that was fabricated over 100 years ago, and proved to be lies over 100 years ago but is still being taught out of most college biology text books, Example: human embryos do not have gill slits and never will no matter how many times or, how long you teach this lie. The are many more, look them up.

So...you've got precisely one example, and one that is being misused by creationists.

From the Talk Origins Link:
The pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos. Agassiz (not a Darwinist himself) said, "The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills disappear and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence" (Agassiz 1874).

Darwinian evolution predicts, among other things, similar (not identical) structures in related organisms. That pharyngeal pouches in humans are similar to pharyngeal pouches (or whatever you call them) in fish is one piece of evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor.

Both Darwin's theories of evolution and intelligent design have problems. Which is why they're both just theories, not scientific fact (despite what many neo-Darwinists might claim).