1221 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

The biological mechanism of ID - explain it. This is what would enable ID to be a scientific theory.

[shadowhawk]

You don't even know what a straw man is. If you did then you wouldn't make the absurd arguments that you do all over this forum.

Still avoiding my questions, eh? Well I predicted that in my first post.

Straw man. 

[Duchykins]

What is the biological mechanism of ID?

[shadowhawk]

Explain yourself. you need to be clear.  Be prepared to also give the same data for evolution.  If the data is still out on some things is it still science?

[Duchykins]

Explain yourself. you need to be clear.  Be prepared to also give the same data for evolution.  If the data is still out on some things is it still science?

I told you at least three times already, we've dismissed evolution as a scientific explanation for the diversity of life. The biological mechanisms outlined by evolutionary theory are irrelevant to the topic of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory whether or not evolution is correct.

The question I've been asking is crystal clear and in very simple language. You are confused by the question for three reasons: 1) you are woefully ignorant of scientific basics 2) you are woefully ignorant of evolution 3) ID has no explanatory power, outlines no mechanism, the answer does not exist in ID literature, so you cannot answer even if you understood what was being asked of you.

What is the biological mechanism proposed by ID?


Say the topic was germ theory. You insist germ theory is just a theory, I tell you that you don't even know what germ theory is, then you ask me what mechanism is described by germ theory to explain the transmission of disease. You can understand that much, can't you?

Mechanism in this context refers to something contained within scientific theories. They are what give theories their very valuable explanatory power. The word mechanism is used slightly differently between the major disciplines like biology, physics, geology, but the general concept is the same - HOW does it work, HOW does this do that, HOW did this result occur, HOW does this phenomena happen, and so forth.

[addx]

If the data is still out on some things is it still science?

If there is no data, there is no science, just science fiction.

Edited by addx, 14 May 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[Duchykins]

Meyer opened with an anti-evolution argument. Fail. Meyer immediately turned the topic into an atheist vs theist issue. Fail. Another one of Meyer's hopeless monsters.

I asked for a SCIENTIFIC explanation. BIOLOGY. Meyer did not outline a biological mechanism unique to ID that explains the diversity of life.

In fact he implied that ANY 'materialistic' and 'naturalistic' explanation would be wrong. He argued AGAINST a materialistic mechanism.

When he did that he revealed that there is NO BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM in ID since biological falls under the umbrellas of material and natural. There is therefore no scientific theory present to replace or even challenge evolution.

Do you understand yet?

Edited by Duchykins, 14 May 2014 - 07:09 PM.

[platypus]

It's pathetic that people are so threatened by evolution that they choose to deny it. One data point against types of Christianity again. 

[addx]

Do you understand yet?

You dont understand, he just made you watch a retard try at science.

[Duchykins]

Do you understand yet?

You dont understand, he just made you watch a retard try at science.

HAHAH true!

[shadowhawk]

Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life—a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal. During the last half century, biologists have come to appreciate the central importance of biological information—stored in DNA and elsewhere in cells—to building animal forms

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0062071475

Review
"It's hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably....Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer." (Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of The Emergence of Animals)

"Darwin's Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building rather than dismissive polarization-bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialogue-and bridges to span evolutionary gaps." (Dr. George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and author of Regenesis)

"Meyer writes beautifully. He marshals complex information as well as any writer I've read....a wonderful, most compelling read." (Dean Koontz, New York Times bestselling author)

"Darwin's Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion." (Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research)

"Meyer demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level....An excellent book and a must read." (Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center)

"Darwin's Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life.... No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin's Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged and discussed." (Dr. Scott Turner, professor of biology at the State University of New York and author of The Tinkerer's Accomplice)

"It is a tour de force.This book is well informed, carefully researched, up-to-date and powerfully argued. It confronts Darwin's doubt and deals with the assumptions of Neo-Darwinism. This book is much needed and I recommend it to students of all levels, to professionals and to laypeople." (Dr. Norman C. Nevin OBE, BSc, MD, FRCPath, FFPH, FRCPE, FRCP; Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast)

"Darwin's Doubt is another excellent book by Stephen Meyer. Stephen Meyer has clearly listened to the arguments of those who are sceptical about intelligent design and has addressed them thoroughly. It is really important that Darwinists read this book carefully and give a response." (Dr. Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature, Head of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University)

"I spend my life reading science books. I've ready many hundreds of them over the years, and in my judgment Darwin's Doubt is the best science book ever written. It is a magnificent work, a true masterpiece that will be read for hundreds of years." (George GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTec)

"The issue on the table is the mechanism of evolution-is it blind and undirected or is it under the control of an intelligence with a goal in mind? In Darwin's Doubt, Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for the latter." (Dr. William S. Harris, Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota)

"Dr. Meyer has written a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis on the massive scientific evidence revealing the total failure of the neo-Darwinian explanation for life's history. Darwin's Doubt is important, clearly written with sound arguments, excellent illustrations and examples that make the topic easily understandable even for non-specialists" (Dr. Matti Leisola, Professor, Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland (emeritus); Editor-in-chief, Bio-Complexity)

"Meyer makes a case for intelligent design as the only viable scientific theory for the origin of biological novelty. Meyer's challenge to naturalism will no doubt be strongly resisted by those committed to a materialist worldview, but provide food for refection for those who are searching for truth." (Dr. Donald L. Ewert, Molecular Biologist, Associate Member (retired), Wistar Institute)

"Stephen C. Meyer's Darwin's Doubt is a truly remarkable book. Within its 413 pages of text are four tightly woven interrelated arguments. Using 753 references, he presents evidence associated with the serious weaknesses of materialistic theories of biological evolution, and positive evidence for the theory of intelligent design." (Dr. Mark C. Biedebach, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach)

"A great book on the origin of animal life and crises of Darwin evolution; very clear, factual, comprehensive, logical, and informative. An enjoyable reading for both non-expert and expert." (Dr. Change Tan, Molecular biologist/developmental biologist, Associate Professor, University of Missouri-Columbia)

Steven Meyer gives an insightful and thoughtful treatment to the history of life. Justice Louis Brandies taught us that, `Sunlight is the best disinfectant,' and Dr. Meyer lets the sun shine in. (Dr. Stephen A. BatzerP.E., forensic engineerDr. Stephen A. Batzer, P.E., forensic engineer)

"Steve Meyer's book is a much-anticipated bombshell that details the swarm of problems of Darwinian evolution and also presents the case for intelligent design. Ask yourself: how often does a book of this kind receive a warm welcome from leading geneticists and paleontologists? Never, until now! " (Dr. Tom Woodward, Research Professor, Trinity College, Tampa Bay, Author of Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design)

"Stephen C. Meyer is brilliant and his latest book, Darwin's Doubt is a must read." (No Source)

"Stephen Meyer's new book, Darwin's Doubt, is a fascinating and rigorous study demonstrating not only that biologists and paleontologists do not have an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, but that there is an alternative view that makes more sense." (Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus; Author of From Darwin to Hitler)

"Meyer is a talented writer with an easygoing voice who has blended interesting history with clear explanations in what may come to be seen as a classic presentation of this most fundamental of all debates." (Terry Scambray, New Oxford Review)

[Duchykins]

I can pull up all kinds of reviews about what a stunning scholar Acharya S is. So what. She is a still a peddler of misleading propaganda.

Meyer is still a professional liar. I am very well versed in his books and (lol) published papers.

And I didn't see ID's biological mechanism among all those quotes. Where is it?

[addx]

Evolution and life itself is not understood properly.
----


Life is observed as persisting self-replicating behaviour. That's it. No more and no less.


There are ONLY 2 top level phenomena matching this definition and one is a 2nd order evolution of the other!


A - behavior of persisting and self-replicating in this world encoded and spreaded in genes


B - behavior of using a body encoded and spreaded by mammalian+ brains - this is a 2nd order evolution of A.

---

A is life - physical bodies and instinctual control

B is knowledge/experience of living/controlling a physical body with instinctual control


--


We see both of them conceive new variants, extinct existing variants and spread variants according to a system.


---

Life as persisting self-replicating behavior can organize further

1. First organization level is inanimate matter into basic replicators - prokaryotes. They are only selected by "natural selection".

2. Second organization level is "gene pool" + body building(multicellular) - eukaryotes. Gene pool is an "organization for selection". Pawns are bound to it by "emotions" in order to evolve it by sacrificing their bodies to prove "worthyness" to the "organization for selection" (encoded in the brains).

3. Third organization level is "gene pool" + social group + territory owning, internal model of social hierarchy and territory owning increases "organization for selection" influence over "natural selection" providing more "competitive" behaviour.

Then life itself transcends genes(A) and becomes knowledge(B) - free of genetic bounds forming second level "organizations for selection" of knowledge.

2.1. First organization level is mammalian social groups - they conceive new knowledge "by accident" (non intentional) and spread it according to body-inbuilt selection rules (determining usefulness towards persisting and replicating of the body - responding to the basic instinct of persisting and self-replicating that the experience of the body provides). The group evolves and passes on(spreads) the knowledge of using their bodies to thrive their group of bodies. There is no self-awareness - animals are not aware of body and body-instinct experience - they just react to it.

2.2. Second organization level is human social groups - they conceive new knowledge "on purpose" and are able to form and join further "organization levels" for evolving knowledge - any groups, institutions, science branches or simply poetry(subjective knowledge, knowledge of how feelings work in tandem with reality). Selection rules are partly body inbuilt but can be adapted by experience to support different kind of selection. Second level supports self-awareness - meaning being aware of body and body-instinct experience and this allows targeted (on purpose) conception of knowledge in order to change the experience you're aware of.

Total sum of all A behaviours represent the adaptibility of the gene pool as a system

Total sum of all B behaviours represents the adaptibility of the social group / civilization


It is in fact that the gene pool(sum of A) and "knowledge pool"(sum of B) evolve and use us as pawns to "test/select behaviour scripts". (of body building and instintual control - A and experience based control B)


A and B also influence each other in a complicated n-traverse cybernetic relationship that can be worked out to any level.

A is knowledge of body building, B is knowledge of living with that body in this world.

---


When you propose life in this way everything can be calculated. Evolution effects, social effects, neurologic effects, population effects, everything. Even God.

My theory explains life mathematically as organization of inanimate matter into animate organizations that we observe and call as life. My theory explains it with no magic whatsoever and it traces life from its origin as simple behaviour of physics forming "organized behaviour" - but this infact is just a subjective opinion. The only difference between life and dead matter is the fact that life exhibits persisting and self-replicating and - evolving persisting and self-replicating. My theory shows life as a mere effect of time and forces on inanimate matter.


So, there's no ID theory and there's no God.

Edited by addx, 15 May 2014 - 09:07 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I can pull up all kinds of reviews about what a stunning scholar Acharya S is. So what. She is a still a peddler of misleading propaganda.

Meyer is still a professional liar. I am very well versed in his books and (lol) published papers.

And I didn't see ID's biological mechanism among all those quotes. Where is it?

 

I agree concerning Acharya S. but it is a logical fallacy to compare her with Meyer or Mickey Mouse.  You havent proved Meyer a liar but you have proved you love to call people names.

What, random mutations are your biological mechanism for increasing complexity.

 

[Duchykins]

What biological mechanism does ID propose?

[shadowhawk]

What biological mechanism does ID propose?

Are random mutations are your biological mechanism for increasing complexity?

 

[Duchykins]

I don't have my own mechanism.  I'm not proposing a new scientific theory.   Not to mention, "increasing complexity" is an idea of life currently held by creationists and people who have misconceptions about evolution, including the old 'ladder of life' concept long proven to be false.   There is no reason for me to try to explain something that doesn't really exist.

 

The topic is ID's status as a scientific theory.  It needs to outline a biological mechanism for diversification of living things in order to have the explanatory power that defines scientific theories, and biology theories at that.

 

What is the mechanism?

Edited by Duchykins, 16 May 2014 - 04:33 AM.

[addx]

http://www.danko-nik.../practopoiesis/

[shadowhawk]

I don't have my own mechanism.  I'm not proposing a new scientific theory.   Not to mention, "increasing complexity" is an idea of life currently held by creationists and people who have misconceptions about evolution, including the old 'ladder of life' concept long proven to be false.   There is no reason for me to try to explain something that doesn't really exist.

 

The topic is ID's status as a scientific theory.  It needs to outline a biological mechanism for diversification of living things in order to have the explanatory power that defines scientific theories, and biology theories at that.

 

What is the mechanism?

 

Again you have not answered one question I asked.  Answer it and we can proceed to answer yours.  All this is just nonsense to keep from having a discussion.

 

Are random mutations  your biological mechanism for increasing complexity? 
 

[addx]

Rofl, what a troll

Is this topic about ID or evolution? Why is it important that he takes a theory and you take one? Why cant he argue without a theory of his own?

Youre just a retard who doesnt realize his own compulsion to troll and argue coming from your insecurities. You covered yourself in provocative and completely deluded viewpoints in order to walk around decorated in issues to debate over since you cant really talk about anything real. Engaging people with these issues and a blitzkrieg amount of fake scientists, distorted logic and argumentation makes you feel secure enough. You have a ready technique for anyway a discussuion goes proving youve been at this for a while. Youve succesfully fooled yourself into thinking you believe in all these things, but unfortunately you forgot that you only adopted them to create a persona, to be different, to be something, to exist. This persona is a false deluded shadow of a person requiring constant validation of its armour and defenses due to fear of ceasing to exist. Youre destined to compulsively seek validation of your existance through interaction and controversy seeking with your false self, armed with a delusion of thinking clear but in fact causing a meaningless life of eternal self defeat and blindness to it. Your parents neglect condemned you to a lifetime of trying to prove that your false persona exists in a way better than others(with better opinions) because this takes away the focus of actually knowing what you are and that your true persona doesnt exist at all in reality but only locked within phantasie imagining new and improved beleifs and arguments to lay upon people and hide behind.

Edited by addx, 16 May 2014 - 08:01 PM.

[Duchykins]

I don't have my own mechanism.  I'm not proposing a new scientific theory.   Not to mention, "increasing complexity" is an idea of life currently held by creationists and people who have misconceptions about evolution, including the old 'ladder of life' concept long proven to be false.   There is no reason for me to try to explain something that doesn't really exist.
 
The topic is ID's status as a scientific theory.  It needs to outline a biological mechanism for diversification of living things in order to have the explanatory power that defines scientific theories, and biology theories at that.
 
What is the mechanism?

 
Again you have not answered one question I asked.  Answer it and we can proceed to answer yours.  All this is just nonsense to keep from having a discussion.
 
Are random mutations  your biological mechanism for increasing complexity? 
 

The reality is that you haven't answered the question that I asked the first day I posted in this thread. Instead, you try distract from the fact that you cannot answer the question by demanding I answer questions about things that don't exist. Your behavior is disgusting.

It's disgusting but it's only making it crystal clear to anyone reading this thread that Intelligent Design is as scientifically void as I have been saying since day one.

You are still helping me illustrate ID's bankruptcy, and you admitted that ID has no biological mechanism when you answered my comments about Meyer with a bunch of quotes meant to legitimize Meyer's arguments. Meyer argued against any biological mechanism for species diversity, remember? You clearly agree with his position and yet you still pretend ID is a scientific theory. I have yet to meet any supporter of ID that didn't resort to lying.

[Duchykins]

Rofl, what a troll

Is this topic about ID or evolution? Why is it important that he takes a theory and you take one? Why cant he argue without a theory of his own?

Youre just a retard who doesnt realize his own compulsion to troll and argue coming from your insecurities. You covered yourself in provocative and completely deluded viewpoints in order to walk around decorated in issues to debate over since you cant really talk about anything real. Engaging people with these issues and a blitzkrieg amount of fake scientists, distorted logic and argumentation makes you feel secure enough. You have a ready technique for anyway a discussuion goes proving youve been at this for a while. Youve succesfully fooled yourself into thinking you believe in all these things, but unfortunately you forgot that you only adopted them to create a persona, to be different, to be something, to exist. This persona is a false deluded shadow of a person requiring conistant validation of its armour and defenses due to fear of ceasing to exist. Youre destined to compulsively seek validation of your existance through interaction and controversy seeking with your false self, armed with a delusion of thinking clear but in fact causing a meaningless life of eternal self defeat and blindness to it. Your parents neglect condemned you to a lifetime of trying to prove that your false persona exists in a way better than others(with better opinions) because this takes away the focus of actually knowing what you are and that your true persona doesnt exist at all in reality but only locked within phantasie imagining new and improved beleifs and arguments to lay upon people and hide behind.

Creationists are so far gone that they don't even realize how much religion they reveal in arguments they think are scientific and (lol) educated.

Here's a fine example, this garbage about 'increasing complexity'. This is not a scientific concept, it's a refined version of the old ideas about a heirarchical ladder of life and the great chain of being - with humans above all other mortal creatures in biological superiority and complexity. It's also founded on the popular but erroneous belief that evolution is about simpler organisms becoming more 'complex' with time. This also indirectly endorses the belief that there such a thing as biological 'devolution'. These are the same people who think eyeless cave fish represent a step 'backward' either in evolution or 'complexity'. When you hear people arguing in ways that rely on these ideas, it's a clue for you to know that they don't really know what the hell they're talking about.

The great chain of being is a religious concept, and was extremely influential with ancient scholars who were trying to classify species. They developed a ladder of life, something that was used for centuries before we learned that things aren't that simple. But while the idea is long abandonded in science, it still flourishes in the worldviews of creationists, and it remains there because the general concept is written all over their religious literature. They'll never alter it because that would threaten their beliefs about divine creation.

[addx]

Rofl, what a troll

Is this topic about ID or evolution? Why is it important that he takes a theory and you take one? Why cant he argue without a theory of his own?

Youre just a retard who doesnt realize his own compulsion to troll and argue coming from your insecurities. You covered yourself in provocative and completely deluded viewpoints in order to walk around decorated in issues to debate over since you cant really talk about anything real. Engaging people with these issues and a blitzkrieg amount of fake scientists, distorted logic and argumentation makes you feel secure enough. You have a ready technique for anyway a discussuion goes proving youve been at this for a while. Youve succesfully fooled yourself into thinking you believe in all these things, but unfortunately you forgot that you only adopted them to create a persona, to be different, to be something, to exist. This persona is a false deluded shadow of a person requiring conistant validation of its armour and defenses due to fear of ceasing to exist. Youre destined to compulsively seek validation of your existance through interaction and controversy seeking with your false self, armed with a delusion of thinking clear but in fact causing a meaningless life of eternal self defeat and blindness to it. Your parents neglect condemned you to a lifetime of trying to prove that your false persona exists in a way better than others(with better opinions) because this takes away the focus of actually knowing what you are and that your true persona doesnt exist at all in reality but only locked within phantasie imagining new and improved beleifs and arguments to lay upon people and hide behind.

Creationists are so far gone that they don't even realize how much religion they reveal in arguments they think are scientific and (lol) educated.

Here's a fine example, this garbage about 'increasing complexity'. This is not a scientific concept, it's a refined version of the old ideas about a heirarchical ladder of life and the great chain of being - with humans above all other mortal creatures in biological superiority and complexity. It's also founded on the popular but erroneous belief that evolution is about simpler organisms becoming more 'complex' with time. This also indirectly endorses the belief that there such a thing as biological 'devolution'. These are the same people who think eyeless cave fish represent a step 'backward' either in evolution or 'complexity'. When you hear people arguing in ways that rely on these ideas, it's a clue for you to know that they don't really know what the hell they're talking about.

The great chain of being is a religious concept, and was extremely influential with ancient scholars who were trying to classify species. They developed a ladder of life, something that was used for centuries before we learned that things aren't that simple. But while the idea is long abandonded in science, it still flourishes in the worldviews of creationists, and it remains there because the general concept is written all over their religious literature. They'll never alter it because that would threaten their beliefs about divine creation.

Well, you know I don't agree on some of those points.

Not sure if you maybe checked out the link I posted a post or two back, I researched some new avenues to further my understanding. The link is about cybernetics and neurology combined very much explains that complexity of behaviour is increased not only by simply creating a more elaborate mechanism but by creating "traverses" - explained in the link. A higher level and lower level mechanism working each at its on level of knowledge, one being a more general version of the other as in adapting rules to learning rules. This creates enormous adaptability jumps compared to a more flat system. This is again in line with my view of the nervous system evolving in several jumps - traverses, each creating a sudden explosion of adaptability and thus new rich life. I do hope you will not offend me by calling my reasoning creationist as the link I posted is a cybernetics theory from a Max Planck institute and has nothing to do with creations as neither of my arguments do.

Current evolutionary does fail to account for some facts and I do think I have some answers which have nothing to do with creationism but are in fact hard core evolution proof showing both life and evolution as an extension of normal physics behaviour. The model I posted in the few posts up is the true physical-cybernetical model of life. And it predicts jumps and a major jump in life itself evolving to support a 2nd order version of life.

So, Id in fact much rather discuss that than this crap. It seems meaningful, while this seems like a waste of time on an insecure internet troll...

[shadowhawk]

Are random mutations  your biological mechanism for increasing complexity?

 

 

 

[addx]

All I see is insanity haircut and 'philosopher of science'

And it reminds of

http://m.youtube.com...h?v=Narg09bbnHE

[Duchykins]

Rofl, what a troll

Is this topic about ID or evolution? Why is it important that he takes a theory and you take one? Why cant he argue without a theory of his own?

Youre just a retard who doesnt realize his own compulsion to troll and argue coming from your insecurities. You covered yourself in provocative and completely deluded viewpoints in order to walk around decorated in issues to debate over since you cant really talk about anything real. Engaging people with these issues and a blitzkrieg amount of fake scientists, distorted logic and argumentation makes you feel secure enough. You have a ready technique for anyway a discussuion goes proving youve been at this for a while. Youve succesfully fooled yourself into thinking you believe in all these things, but unfortunately you forgot that you only adopted them to create a persona, to be different, to be something, to exist. This persona is a false deluded shadow of a person requiring conistant validation of its armour and defenses due to fear of ceasing to exist. Youre destined to compulsively seek validation of your existance through interaction and controversy seeking with your false self, armed with a delusion of thinking clear but in fact causing a meaningless life of eternal self defeat and blindness to it. Your parents neglect condemned you to a lifetime of trying to prove that your false persona exists in a way better than others(with better opinions) because this takes away the focus of actually knowing what you are and that your true persona doesnt exist at all in reality but only locked within phantasie imagining new and improved beleifs and arguments to lay upon people and hide behind.

Creationists are so far gone that they don't even realize how much religion they reveal in arguments they think are scientific and (lol) educated.

Here's a fine example, this garbage about 'increasing complexity'. This is not a scientific concept, it's a refined version of the old ideas about a heirarchical ladder of life and the great chain of being - with humans above all other mortal creatures in biological superiority and complexity. It's also founded on the popular but erroneous belief that evolution is about simpler organisms becoming more 'complex' with time. This also indirectly endorses the belief that there such a thing as biological 'devolution'. These are the same people who think eyeless cave fish represent a step 'backward' either in evolution or 'complexity'. When you hear people arguing in ways that rely on these ideas, it's a clue for you to know that they don't really know what the hell they're talking about.

The great chain of being is a religious concept, and was extremely influential with ancient scholars who were trying to classify species. They developed a ladder of life, something that was used for centuries before we learned that things aren't that simple. But while the idea is long abandonded in science, it still flourishes in the worldviews of creationists, and it remains there because the general concept is written all over their religious literature. They'll never alter it because that would threaten their beliefs about divine creation.

Well, you know I don't agree on some of those points.

Not sure if you maybe checked out the link I posted a post or two back, I researched some new avenues to further my understanding. The link is about cybernetics and neurology combined very much explains that complexity of behaviour is increased not only by simply creating a more elaborate mechanism but by creating "traverses" - explained in the link. A higher level and lower level mechanism working each at its on level of knowledge, one being a more general version of the other as in adapting rules to learning rules. This creates enormous adaptability jumps compared to a more flat system. This is again in line with my view of the nervous system evolving in several jumps - traverses, each creating a sudden explosion of adaptability and thus new rich life. I do hope you will not offend me by calling my reasoning creationist as the link I posted is a cybernetics theory from a Max Planck institute and has nothing to do with creations as neither of my arguments do.

Current evolutionary does fail to account for some facts and I do think I have some answers which have nothing to do with creationism but are in fact hard core evolution proof showing both life and evolution as an extension of normal physics behaviour. The model I posted in the few posts up is the true physical-cybernetical model of life. And it predicts jumps and a major jump in life itself evolving to support a 2nd order version of life.

So, Id in fact much rather discuss that than this crap. It seems meaningful, while this seems like a waste of time on an insecure internet troll...

Well actually some of that sounds interesting.. And no I wouldn't call it creationist because you didn't couch it in a misrepresentation of evolution. It's true that the current paradigm of evolution is incomplete and that is true of every single scientific theory in existence. It's why we have debates about gradualism vs punctuated equilibria, it's why we have debates about how to classify 'transitional' species, etc. And they're much more useful than arguing with creationists and their absolutely immovable position.

[Duchykins]

Are random mutations  your biological mechanism for increasing complexity?
 
 
 

I already told you that 'increasing complexity' is ID creationist garbage. That concept does not exist in biology.

But apparently you can't read very well. I'll have to keep paragraphs shorter to help you digest sentences a bit more easily.

So I'll have to assume that 'increasing complexity' is an idea unique to Intelligent Design.

You are now free to demonstrate that a pattern of ever increasing complexity exists in biological organisms.

Once you do that, then we can discuss how such a phenomenon might occur.

Consider this a way to give ID some substance.

Go

[shadowhawk]

No, you get to also these issues.  You mean there is not increasing complexity in other views beside ID?  Nonsense.

 

Are random mutations  your biological mechanism for increasing complexity?  If not, what is?

No, you get to also these issues.  You mean there is not increasing complexity in other views beside ID?  Nonsense.

 

Are random mutations  your biological mechanism for increasing complexity?  If not, what is?

[Duchykins]

Page 11



"Ask any ID proponent, "how does ID explain the diversity of life?" "how is ID different from evolutionary theory, in order to be considered an alternative scientific theory?" - these are important questions rarely asked, and watch the IDiot sputter and fumble over answers, revealing the intellectual bankruptcy of ID propaganda. This also forces people to look at what the synthesis is and what it does, what it's used for, which can helpful on occasion because I have never personally seen a (Christian, typically) ID supporter make an argument that actually addresses evolution, but rather the idea of 'evolution' that exists in their heads.

Edited by Duchykins, 22 February 2014 - 02:57 PM."



Your attempts to dodge my question only prove me right.

lol