1221 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

For intelligent design, the big implication of antibiotic resistance is that it is cited as the main illustration of natural selection. That and those light and dark moths in industrial climes! Ask a Darwinian if natural selection has been demonstrated and he will tell you about antibiotic resistance in a very condescending tone. He will assume you never heard of it.

Basically, antibiotic resistance show how you get more of what already exists, not how you get new things. Darwin thought natural selection was the latter.

These same bacteria have been doing this kind of change for a long time.  Targeted metagenomic analyses of rigorously authenticated ancient DNA from 30,000-year-old Beringian permafrost sediments and the identification of a highly diverse collection of genes encoding resistance to ?-lactam, tetracycline and glycopeptide antibiotics. Structure and function studies on the complete vancomycin resistance element VanA confirmed its similarity to modern variants. These results show conclusively that antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use.
http://www.evolution...who_085111.html

It is still the same old bacteria and still has the same abilities of adaption to things that can kill it.  It beats our best intelligence as humans.  Did this happen by chance?  Evolution is irrelivant to antibiotic resistence.  http://www.evolution...ibio004969.html
 

So certain species of bacteria were already resistant to antibiotics before those antibiotics existed?

How does ID explain antibiotic resistance?

[Duchykins]

Hint: if the phrase 'horizontal gene transfer' is not part of your answer, you failed.
And when you're done, you can tell us how ID illustrates the mechanism of 'adaptation'.

[shadowhawk]

Bacteria have the adaptive ability to defend against various situations, it is in their genes.  So they did and have been doing this for a very long time.  They have not become anything but bacteria.  Natural Selection will determine which dog type is best suited for an environment but they are still dogs and have not evolved.  The gene pool has all these types.  I am sure you have heard of genotype and phenotype.

[shadowhawk]

Antibiotics come from a biological source.  There is no reason they have not encountered these negatives before, even if they seem new to us.. 

[Duchykins]

Bacteria have the adaptive ability to defend against various situations, it is in their genes.  So they did and have been doing this for a very long time.  They have not become anything but bacteria.  Natural Selection will determine which dog type is best suited for an environment but they are still dogs and have not evolved.  The gene pool has all these types.  I am sure you have heard of genotype and phenotype.

So your answer is "they just have the ability to adapt"

This is not an explanation, it is reaffirming that adaptation happens.

The stupid, it burns.

[shadowhawk]

Again this has nothing to do with the topic.  Since you standard is to call people names, you explain why it is wrong.  I don't know which gene call people names.  On top of that I am the only one who is putting anything out there.  Your game is to just sit back and play the skeptic.  Put it out there.  Proof.

[Duchykins]

The topic is ID and its scientific usefulness. I asked how ID explains adaptation and you basically said the mechanism for adaptation is just there in the organism. 'It's just there' is not an explanation. And now you're trying to change the sibject because you have no explanatiob and you know it.

[serp777]

 

 

Well, Popper aside, and the debate is not over, is beside the point.  You can always change your mind in Science as you discover more.  The people who want to rule things out of even consideration are not speaking for science.  All questions are open.  ID is in.

 

Ok then, same with leprechauns, the celestial teapot, santa clause and reindeer, ancient aliens, alien abductions, etc, etc. Glad we can agree that ID would be as valid as those things, which was our entire point from the beginning. Thanks for conceding; now we don't need to talk about this anymore. Just because it's a question does not mean science should bother addressing it. 4th grade logic--theres no such thing as a bad question

 

Also in your words, science is a process, not a position, so people don't speak for it. 

 

 think you have the wrong topic..  Name calling and attempt at ridicule.  No logic here.

 

you just dont understand the logic, or you're denying it out of spite. You have no logic. 

Again this has nothing to do with the topic.  Since you standard is to call people names, you explain why it is wrong.  I don't know which gene call people names.  On top of that I am the only one who is putting anything out there.  Your game is to just sit back and play the skeptic.  Put it out there.  Proof.

 

Proof of what? You keep asking for proof but all you're doing is ad ignorantium. You've made the claim ID should be valid, but you havent provided any good evidence. 

Again this has nothing to do with the topic.  Since you standard is to call people names, you explain why it is wrong.  I don't know which gene call people names.  On top of that I am the only one who is putting anything out there.  Your game is to just sit back and play the skeptic.  Put it out there.  Proof.

 All you do is complain about alleged name calling. YOu should cry to people who actually care. 

[shadowhawk]

Actually IK did not start this topic.  I would have worded it EVOLUTION OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE, IN OR OUT.   This way we don't get the game here, where only the id position answers questions and then sit back and play skeptic.  ID says the way we get new information to explain diversity of the code of life requires an intelligent source.  Mutation and chance can't do it.  However the game is simply to ask who or what the intelligence is and we don't yet know.  We have the painting which could not just happen by accident but we do not yet know who the painter is. 

 

"All you do is complain about alleged name calling. YOu should cry to people who actually care."

Or people who are fair.

[Duchykins]

What's "new information"?

[Duchykins]

You haven't offered anything in the way of positive arguments for ID's explanation for the diversity of life, which it must do in order to be able to be an alterative theory to the modern synthesis. Again and again, your argument is 'life is designed by intelligent agency' and 'evolution alone isn't enough'.

At face value and with no other substance, this is nothing more than theistic evolution. Evolution designed by an intelligent agency is one way of describing it. Theistic evolution encompasses the whole modern synthesis but with the additional belief that the mechanisms of evolution were devised by an intelligence.


Disagree with theistic evolution? Fine.

Still think ID is a scientific theory that competes with the synthesis? You need to present some substance in ID, and it must differ from the synthesis in some way, and in places where it differs it needs to offer alternate explanations rather than simple disagreement of evolutionary mechanisms, if there is mere disagreement only then ID is not an alternative explanation. You cannot replace an explanation with a nonexplanation. You can prove the synthesis is wrong but you can't put ID in its place since ID is about proving evolution wrong, and the teleological bits are scientifically vacuous, ID is not about explaining the diversity of life as the synthesis is.

ID is done once you throw out evolution. It can't do anything in the scientific arena after that. ID doesn't have a biological theory unto itself, it only has a teleological argument that is 100% useless in medical research, for example.

[serp777]

Actually IK did not start this topic.  I would have worded it EVOLUTION OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE, IN OR OUT.   This way we don't get the game here, where only the id position answers questions and then sit back and play skeptic.  ID says the way we get new information to explain diversity of the code of life requires an intelligent source.  Mutation and chance can't do it.  However the game is simply to ask who or what the intelligence is and we don't yet know.  We have the painting which could not just happen by accident but we do not yet know who the painter is. 
 
"All you do is complain about alleged name calling. YOu should cry to people who actually care."
Or people who are fair.

Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution

[serp777]

Actually IK did not start this topic.  I would have worded it EVOLUTION OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE, IN OR OUT.   This way we don't get the game here, where only the id position answers questions and then sit back and play skeptic.  ID says the way we get new information to explain diversity of the code of life requires an intelligent source.  Mutation and chance can't do it.  However the game is simply to ask who or what the intelligence is and we don't yet know.  We have the painting which could not just happen by accident but we do not yet know who the painter is. 
 
"All you do is complain about alleged name calling. YOu should cry to people who actually care."
Or people who are fair.

False analogy. We have a snowflake or a supernova nebula and you think its designed im spite of science.

[addx]

Your game is to just sit back and play the skeptic.

Or maybe people aren't playing games and are also tired of your games.

[shadowhawk]

What's "new information"?

You do not have change without new code.  That is why they call DNA a code.  Evolution claims you get the new information by mutation and chance.  No new code, no new creatures.  No new code, no new computer program.  Natural selection comes into play when the mutation is advantageous.  Evolution 101.  Can MUTATION + CHANCE GIVE US NEW CODE. (Information) ID says no.  Only something intelligent is capable of doing that.  This is what this is all about.  If mutation + chnce can show me.  Oh I know you don’t have to answer any questions.   How nice.
 

 

[shadowhawk]

Serp777:  " Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution." 

Well I have gone through this before in detail.  You are the one making the clam that mutation + chance can produce new information enough to explain life and its diversity.  Do it.  All you need to do to falsify ID is to do it.  So lets end this debate, do it.  ID can be disproved.  Do it.
 

[Duchykins]

What's "new information"?

You do not have change without new code.  That is why they call DNA a code.  Evolution claims you get the new information by mutation and chance.  No new code, no new creatures.  No new code, no new computer program.  Natural selection comes into play when the mutation is advantageous.  Evolution 101.  Can MUTATION + CHANCE GIVE US NEW CODE. (Information) ID says no.  Only something intelligent is capable of doing that.  This is what this is all about.  If mutation + chnce can show me.  Oh I know you dont have to answer any questions.   How nice.
 
 

Natural selection is always in play, whether the mutation is deleterious or neutral as well. You still can't make an argument about natural selection since you clearly have a 9th grader's understanding of it. You claim to accept natural selection but you have no real idea what it is, you are still relying on pop culture ideas of it. I know that you have made no effort to learn more about selection since I last pointed out your ignorance of it. Until you become competent in your understanding of it, all of you arguments about it will be void.


Also, as I said before, your arguments involving genetics are too incoherent to discuss. You are literally talking nonsense.

[shadowhawk]

Natural Selection alone does not Evolution make.  Yes it is always there even for ID.  I do make an argument for Natural Selection and you are simply name calling when you say it is 9th grade.  

Natural selection has to select from new information if evolution takes place.  Where does that Information come from?  Mutation and Chance will not do it.  Nonsense.  This is the heart of this topic.

[serp777]

Serp777:  " Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution." 

Well I have gone through this before in detail.  You are the one making the clam that mutation + chance can produce new information enough to explain life and its diversity.  Do it.  All you need to do to falsify ID is to do it.  So lets end this debate, do it.  ID can be disproved.  Do it.
 

 

I agree I made a claim and I can support it with clear evidence; finally some common ground. Computer simulations of evolution show this quite clearly. 

 

I can write a computer program that copies itself, but each time it copies itself through a string (a string that contains its entire program from the previous copy), it either adds or subtracts the string length, and or then randomly changes some of the characters that compose the string. Eventually some of the new programs generated will have a new function or new lines of code that are novel, purely from random number generators and a basic algorithm, which then compete for cpu and memory resources. THis is essentially the same logic that evolution uses to generate new information. Considering these programs have already been written in the 90s, Im glad you agree it disproves ID. Here is the link that discusses Tierra, a program that does exactly what i described above. 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ter_simulation)

 

Quite interesting actually; the goal of this was to auto optimize functions through random mutations, which would eventually lead to better performance. THis is completely new information not created by the original programmer. 

 

 

Edited by serp777, 16 July 2014 - 12:06 AM.

[Duchykins]

Natural Selection alone does not Evolution make.  Yes it is always there even for ID.  I do make an argument for Natural Selection and you are simply name calling when you say it is 9th grade.  

Natural selection has to select from new information if evolution takes place.  Where does that Information come from?  Mutation and Chance will not do it.  Nonsense.  This is the heart of this topic.

All you're doing is declaring that mutation and selection aren't enough. Declarations aren't evidence, they aren't explanations, they aren't even really arguments. When you offer nothing else your claims can be dismissed at face value.

[shadowhawk]

 

Serp777:  " Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution." 

Well I have gone through this before in detail.  You are the one making the clam that mutation + chance can produce new information enough to explain life and its diversity.  Do it.  All you need to do to falsify ID is to do it.  So lets end this debate, do it.  ID can be disproved.  Do it.
 

 

I agree I made a claim and I can support it with clear evidence; finally some common ground. Computer simulations of evolution show this quite clearly. 

 

I can write a computer program that copies itself, but each time it copies itself through a string (a string that contains its entire program from the previous copy), it either adds or subtracts the string length, and or then randomly changes some of the characters that compose the string. Eventually some of the new programs generated will have a new function or new lines of code that are novel, purely from random number generators and a basic algorithm, which then compete for cpu and memory resources. THis is essentially the same logic that evolution uses to generate new information. Considering these programs have already been written in the 90s, Im glad you agree it disproves ID. Here is the link that discusses Tierra, a program that does exactly what i described above. 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ter_simulation)

 

Quite interesting actually; the goal of this was to auto optimize functions through random mutations, which would eventually lead to better performance. THis is completely new information not created by the original programmer. 

 

 

 

Yes, ID designed the computer program.  It did not do so by random chance.  It remains the same program it was designed by intelligence to be.  My son is a computer scientist and I know how it works.

[shadowhawk]

 

Natural Selection alone does not Evolution make.  Yes it is always there even for ID.  I do make an argument for Natural Selection and you are simply name calling when you say it is 9th grade.  

Natural selection has to select from new information if evolution takes place.  Where does that Information come from?  Mutation and Chance will not do it.  Nonsense.  This is the heart of this topic.

All you're doing is declaring that mutation and selection aren't enough. Declarations aren't evidence, they aren't explanations, they aren't even really arguments. When you offer nothing else your claims can be dismissed at face value.

 

Are you declaring they are enough?  Evidence.  So far all you have shown none.  Natural Selection, any idiot can see.  Mutation and random mindless Chance no one can see.  Yet this is the mechanism of evolution.  And you want to rule out any other competing theory and you don’t even have your own ducks in a row.

[serp777]

 

Serp777:  " Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution." 

Well I have gone through this before in detail.  You are the one making the clam that mutation + chance can produce new information enough to explain life and its diversity.  Do it.  All you need to do to falsify ID is to do it.  So lets end this debate, do it.  ID can be disproved.  Do it.
 

 
I agree I made a claim and I can support it with clear evidence; finally some common ground. Computer simulations of evolution show this quite clearly. 
 
I can write a computer program that copies itself, but each time it copies itself through a string (a string that contains its entire program from the previous copy), it either adds or subtracts the string length, and or then randomly changes some of the characters that compose the string. Eventually some of the new programs generated will have a new function or new lines of code that are novel, purely from random number generators and a basic algorithm, which then compete for cpu and memory resources. THis is essentially the same logic that evolution uses to generate new information. Considering these programs have already been written in the 90s, Im glad you agree it disproves ID. Here is the link that discusses Tierra, a program that does exactly what i described above. 
 
http://en.wikipedia....ter_simulation)
 
Quite interesting actually; the goal of this was to auto optimize functions through random mutations, which would eventually lead to better performance. THis is completely new information not created by the original programmer. 
 
 
 

Yes, ID designed the computer program.  It did not do so by random chance.  It remains the same program it was designed by intelligence to be.  My son is a computer scientist and I know how it works.

Clearly you did not understand the argument at all or you don't understand the computer science. You argued that random chance and mutations cannot lead to new information and diversity. I gave you computer simulations demonstrating it does. Did ypu forget where the argument was? Now you suddenly revert back to the beginning of life.
This evidence shows any self replicating entity that randomly changes evolves to eventually generate new information. Weve given you signficant evidence that advanced organic molecules from randomly. Some of them can then self replicate

[Duchykins]

 

Natural Selection alone does not Evolution make.  Yes it is always there even for ID.  I do make an argument for Natural Selection and you are simply name calling when you say it is 9th grade.  

Natural selection has to select from new information if evolution takes place.  Where does that Information come from?  Mutation and Chance will not do it.  Nonsense.  This is the heart of this topic.

All you're doing is declaring that mutation and selection aren't enough. Declarations aren't evidence, they aren't explanations, they aren't even really arguments. When you offer nothing else your claims can be dismissed at face value.
 

Are you declaring they are enough?  Evidence.  So far all you have shown none.  Natural Selection, any idiot can see.  Mutation and random mindless Chance no one can see.  Yet this is the mechanism of evolution.  And you want to rule out any other competing theory and you dont even have your own ducks in a row.

200,000+ vigorously reviewed papers and more than 100+ years of Christians trying to prove evolution wrong says you're incorrect about the lack of evidence supporting the modern synthesis. The evidence doesn't evaporate just because you say it doesn't exist. You're not even aware of the mountain of evidence you're claiming does not exist and you reveal this ignorance time and time again in your arguments. Your arguments don't even touch the subject because you repeatedly demonstrate in your arguments that you don't even have a college freshman understanding of biology and evolutionary mechanisms, something that could be corrected with a basic biology course at the local community college.

But you probably think academia is full of atheists and evoluionists who lie to people about evolution for no apparent reason. You definitely have that conspiracy theory paranoia in some of your arguments about academia and the scientific community.

Your declarations are dismissable on their faces. ID isn't a competing theory because it's not a theory, and it will never be a theory until it is altered to outline some kind of mechanism for diversity, offering an explanation.

Edited by Duchykins, 17 July 2014 - 03:32 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

Serp777:  " Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution." 

Well I have gone through this before in detail.  You are the one making the clam that mutation + chance can produce new information enough to explain life and its diversity.  Do it.  All you need to do to falsify ID is to do it.  So lets end this debate, do it.  ID can be disproved.  Do it.
 

 
I agree I made a claim and I can support it with clear evidence; finally some common ground. Computer simulations of evolution show this quite clearly. 
 
I can write a computer program that copies itself, but each time it copies itself through a string (a string that contains its entire program from the previous copy), it either adds or subtracts the string length, and or then randomly changes some of the characters that compose the string. Eventually some of the new programs generated will have a new function or new lines of code that are novel, purely from random number generators and a basic algorithm, which then compete for cpu and memory resources. THis is essentially the same logic that evolution uses to generate new information. Considering these programs have already been written in the 90s, Im glad you agree it disproves ID. Here is the link that discusses Tierra, a program that does exactly what i described above. 
 
http://en.wikipedia....ter_simulation)
 
Quite interesting actually; the goal of this was to auto optimize functions through random mutations, which would eventually lead to better performance. THis is completely new information not created by the original programmer. 
 
 
 

Yes, ID designed the computer program.  It did not do so by random chance.  It remains the same program it was designed by intelligence to be.  My son is a computer scientist and I know how it works.

Clearly you did not understand the argument at all or you don't understand the computer science. You argued that random chance and mutations cannot lead to new information and diversity. I gave you computer simulations demonstrating it does. Did ypu forget where the argument was? Now you suddenly revert back to the beginning of life.
This evidence shows any self replicating entity that randomly changes evolves to eventually generate new information. Weve given you signficant evidence that advanced organic molecules from randomly. Some of them can then self replicate

 

Did you forget the intelligent computer programers who designed the program?

Where is the evolution?

 

 

[maxwatt]

ID explains nothing that cannot be explained without it.  Just as epicycles can explain the retrograde motion of the planets, but a heliocentric theory makes astronomical calculations a lot easier.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Duchkins: 200,000+ vigorously reviewed papers and more than 100+ years of Christians trying to prove evolution wrong says you're incorrect about the lack of evidence supporting the modern synthesis. The evidence doesn't evaporate just because you say it doesn't exist. You're not even aware of the mountain of evidence you're claiming does not exist and you reveal this ignorance time and time again in your arguments. Your arguments don't even touch the subject because you repeatedly demonstrate in your arguments that you don't even have a college freshman understanding of biology and evolutionary mechanisms, something that could be corrected with a basic biology course at the local community college.

But you probably think academia is full of atheists and evoluionists who lie to people about evolution for no apparent reason. You definitely have that conspiracy theory paranoia in some of your arguments about academia and the scientific community.

Your declarations are dismissable on their faces. ID isn't a competing theory because it's not a theory, and it will never be a theory until it is altered to outline some kind of mechanism for diversity, offering an explanation.

So beside the bull, with all this material it should be easy to show me evidence of Natural Selection, any idiot can see and mutation and random, mindless, chance no one can see, producing new information resulting in the diversity of species.  This is the mechanism of evolution.  I want to see evidence where mutation and mindless chance created diversity that we see today.  Can it create the necessary new information for the advancement of evolution?

[shadowhawk]

ID explains nothing that cannot be explained without it.  Just as epicycles can explain the retrograde motion of the planets, but a heliocentric theory makes astronomical calculations a lot easier.

 

 

The issue is what is the truth.  You are comparing different and non related things.

 

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

Serp777:  " Mutation and chance can do it. You made an assertion that they can't so its your job to prove otherwise. My evidence? All of evolution." 

Well I have gone through this before in detail.  You are the one making the clam that mutation + chance can produce new information enough to explain life and its diversity.  Do it.  All you need to do to falsify ID is to do it.  So lets end this debate, do it.  ID can be disproved.  Do it.
 

 
I agree I made a claim and I can support it with clear evidence; finally some common ground. Computer simulations of evolution show this quite clearly. 
 
I can write a computer program that copies itself, but each time it copies itself through a string (a string that contains its entire program from the previous copy), it either adds or subtracts the string length, and or then randomly changes some of the characters that compose the string. Eventually some of the new programs generated will have a new function or new lines of code that are novel, purely from random number generators and a basic algorithm, which then compete for cpu and memory resources. THis is essentially the same logic that evolution uses to generate new information. Considering these programs have already been written in the 90s, Im glad you agree it disproves ID. Here is the link that discusses Tierra, a program that does exactly what i described above. 
 
http://en.wikipedia....ter_simulation)
 
Quite interesting actually; the goal of this was to auto optimize functions through random mutations, which would eventually lead to better performance. THis is completely new information not created by the original programmer. 
 
 
 

Yes, ID designed the computer program.  It did not do so by random chance.  It remains the same program it was designed by intelligence to be.  My son is a computer scientist and I know how it works.

Clearly you did not understand the argument at all or you don't understand the computer science. You argued that random chance and mutations cannot lead to new information and diversity. I gave you computer simulations demonstrating it does. Did ypu forget where the argument was? Now you suddenly revert back to the beginning of life.
This evidence shows any self replicating entity that randomly changes evolves to eventually generate new information. Weve given you signficant evidence that advanced organic molecules from randomly. Some of them can then self replicate

 

Did you forget the intelligent computer programers who designed the program?

Where is the evolution?

 

 

 

No i did not forget; that has nothing to do with the argument that we were having. The argument wasn't about the beginning of life. The argument was that competition, and random mutations CAN produce diversity and new information once a context exists for it to occur. Furthermore, again, we've given you ample evidence that advanced organic molecules form randomly all over the universe. Since we know that organic molecules make up RNA, we can deduce that it's possible advanced organic molecules can randomly form in such a way, although unlikely, to start copying themselves and eventually produce life. You're dismissing scientific evidence and instead produced a chart that is not relevant. 

 

It follows logically that since organic molecules can randomly form, and that some organic molecules can self replicate, and that self replicating competing organisms can produce diversity and new information, that intelligent design is not required at all for the development and evolution of life. Even if intelligent design was proven, that would still leave open the question of where that intelligence came from, which would lead us back to this in an infinite regression, unless it came about through natural means. 

Edited by serp777, 17 July 2014 - 07:40 PM.

[Duchykins]

So beside the bull, with all this material it should be easy to show me evidence of Natural Selection, any idiot can see and mutation and random, mindless, chance no one can see, producing new information resulting in the diversity of species.  This is the mechanism of evolution.  I want to see evidence where mutation and mindless chance created diversity that we see today.  Can it create the necessary new information for the advancement of evolution?[/quote]


There's that nonsense I talked about. "Mutation and mindless chance" is not an accurate description of evolution. You're still not talking about evolution. Nobody is obligated to humor the ignorant and bizarre idea evolution you have in your head.

All you have is an argument from personal incredulity that's founded on a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter.

I already asked you what 'new information' is. Last I checked, any mutation is 'new' information. That's why I asked you if your intelligent agencies micromanage every mutation that occurs. Your answer must be yes because you seem to be unable to fathom how mutations occur without being overseen by intellient agencies, and flat deny it's even possible... apparently it blows your mind so it must be wrong.