1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

http://intelligentde...T17_51_38-07_00

[shadowhawk]

I have given lots of evidence for ID.  I am denying nothing but the post which was not from you but addx.  So no Lie but the name calling when your point is weak is typical

 

Let the IDers speak for themselves.

 

http://intelligentde...T17_51_38-07_00

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

THE PEPPERED MOTH

One of the evidences for evolution is the peppered moth which is in the list I posted earlier.  Here is a critique by Dr. J. Wells from UC Berkley regarding it.

 

The peppered moth story is familiar -- even overly familiar -- to most readers of ENV, so I will summarize it only briefly here. Before the industrial revolution, most peppered moths in England were light-colored; but after tree trunks around cities were darkened by pollution, a dark-colored ("melanic") variety became much more common (a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism"). In the 1950s, British physician Bernard Kettlewell performed some experiments that seemed to show that the proportion of melanic moths had increased because they were better camouflaged on darkened tree trunks and thus less likely to be eaten by predatory birds.

Kettlewell's evidence soon became the classic textbook demonstration of natural selection in action -- commonly illustrated with photos of peppered moths resting on light- and dark-colored tree trunks.

By the 1990s, however, biologists had discovered several discrepancies in the classic story-- not the least of which was that peppered moths in the wild do not usually rest on tree trunks. Most of the textbook photos had been staged.

In the 2000s the story began disappearing from the textbooks. British biologist Michael Majerus then did some studies that he felt supported the camouflage-predation explanation. But before he died of cancer in 2009, he only managed to publish a report of his study in the Darwin lobby's in-house magazine Evolution: Education and Outreach. Now four other British biologists have presented his results posthumously in the Royal Society's peer-reviewed Biology Letters. In an accompanying supplement, the authors presented their version of what they call "the peppered moth debacle." And a debacle it certainly is, but not in the way they think.

According to Charles Darwin, natural selection has been "the most important" factor in the descent with modification of all living things from one or a few common ancestors, yet he had no actual evidence for it. All he could offer in The Origin of Species were "one or two imaginary illustrations." It wasn't until almost a century later that Kettlewell seemed to provide "Darwin's missing evidence" by marking and releasing light- and dark-colored moths in polluted and unpolluted woodlands and recovering some of them the next day. Consistent with the camouflage-predation explanation, the proportion of better-camouflaged moths increased between their release and recapture.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, however, researchers reported various problems with the camouflage-predation explanation, and in 1998 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent and two colleagues published an article in volume 30 of Evolutionary Biology concluding "there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations and experiments, to support this explanation at the present time." (p. 318)

The same year, Michael Majerus published a book in which he concluded that evidence gathered in the forty years since Kettlewell's work showed that "the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the story's component parts." (p. 116) In a review of Majerus's book published in Nature, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote: "From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong." According to Coyne, the fact that peppered moths in the wild rarely rest on tree trunks "alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks."

In 1999, I published an article in The Scientist summarizing these and other criticisms of the peppered moth story, and in 2000 I included a chapter on peppered moths in my book Icons of Evolution. Then, in 2002, journalist Judith Hooper published a book about the controversy titled Of Moths and Men. Hooper accused Kettlewell of fraud, though I never did; my criticism was directed primarily at textbook writers who ignored problems with the story and continued to use staged photos even after they were known to misrepresent natural conditions.

[Duchykins]

This is like someone screwing up a medical study, which is revealed by scientists later, and some anti-intellectual douchebag uses that study to say that the whole of allopathic medicine is a fraud.


If it's a good enough argument for creationists to use, then everyone else should do it.

[Duchykins]

By the way, you thought Coyne have valid points to make when it was something that could be twisted around and used against the entire biological community - I bet that you disagree with everything Coyne wrote in his book "Why Evolution is True".

Creationists are such tawdry hypocrites.

Edited by Duchykins, 08 August 2014 - 02:44 AM.

[shadowhawk]

This is like someone screwing up a medical study, which is revealed by scientists later, and some anti-intellectual douchebag uses that study to say that the whole of allopathic medicine is a fraud.


If it's a good enough argument for creationists to use, then everyone else should do it.

  Absolutely zero evidence.

[shadowhawk]

By the way, you thought Coyne have valid points to make when it was something that could be twisted around and used against the entire biological community - I bet that you disagree with everything Coyne wrote in his book "Why Evolution is True".

Creationists are such tawdry hypocrites.

 

This is contentless.  Just more name calling as is your usual.
 

[Duchykins]

This is like someone screwing up a medical study, which is revealed by scientists later, and some anti-intellectual douchebag uses that study to say that the whole of allopathic medicine is a fraud.


If it's a good enough argument for creationists to use, then everyone else should do it.

Absolutely zero evidence.

It's an attack on the logical structure of your crap argument, moron.

Where is your evidence that ID has a biological mechanism?

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Systems Design

 

http://intelligentde...T17_19_09-07_00

 

 

 

 

[serp777]

 

This is like someone screwing up a medical study, which is revealed by scientists later, and some anti-intellectual douchebag uses that study to say that the whole of allopathic medicine is a fraud.


If it's a good enough argument for creationists to use, then everyone else should do it.

  Absolutely zero evidence.

 

No evidence for ID as usual 

[serp777]

THE PEPPERED MOTH

One of the evidences for evolution is the peppered moth which is in the list I posted earlier.  Here is a critique by Dr. J. Wells from UC Berkley regarding it.

 

The peppered moth story is familiar -- even overly familiar -- to most readers of ENV, so I will summarize it only briefly here. Before the industrial revolution, most peppered moths in England were light-colored; but after tree trunks around cities were darkened by pollution, a dark-colored ("melanic") variety became much more common (a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism"). In the 1950s, British physician Bernard Kettlewell performed some experiments that seemed to show that the proportion of melanic moths had increased because they were better camouflaged on darkened tree trunks and thus less likely to be eaten by predatory birds.

Kettlewell's evidence soon became the classic textbook demonstration of natural selection in action -- commonly illustrated with photos of peppered moths resting on light- and dark-colored tree trunks.

By the 1990s, however, biologists had discovered several discrepancies in the classic story-- not the least of which was that peppered moths in the wild do not usually rest on tree trunks. Most of the textbook photos had been staged.

In the 2000s the story began disappearing from the textbooks. British biologist Michael Majerus then did some studies that he felt supported the camouflage-predation explanation. But before he died of cancer in 2009, he only managed to publish a report of his study in the Darwin lobby's in-house magazine Evolution: Education and Outreach. Now four other British biologists have presented his results posthumously in the Royal Society's peer-reviewed Biology Letters. In an accompanying supplement, the authors presented their version of what they call "the peppered moth debacle." And a debacle it certainly is, but not in the way they think.

According to Charles Darwin, natural selection has been "the most important" factor in the descent with modification of all living things from one or a few common ancestors, yet he had no actual evidence for it. All he could offer in The Origin of Species were "one or two imaginary illustrations." It wasn't until almost a century later that Kettlewell seemed to provide "Darwin's missing evidence" by marking and releasing light- and dark-colored moths in polluted and unpolluted woodlands and recovering some of them the next day. Consistent with the camouflage-predation explanation, the proportion of better-camouflaged moths increased between their release and recapture.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, however, researchers reported various problems with the camouflage-predation explanation, and in 1998 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent and two colleagues published an article in volume 30 of Evolutionary Biology concluding "there is little persuasive evidence, in the form of rigorous and replicated observations and experiments, to support this explanation at the present time." (p. 318)

The same year, Michael Majerus published a book in which he concluded that evidence gathered in the forty years since Kettlewell's work showed that "the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the story's component parts." (p. 116) In a review of Majerus's book published in Nature, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote: "From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong." According to Coyne, the fact that peppered moths in the wild rarely rest on tree trunks "alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks."

In 1999, I published an article in The Scientist summarizing these and other criticisms of the peppered moth story, and in 2000 I included a chapter on peppered moths in my book Icons of Evolution. Then, in 2002, journalist Judith Hooper published a book about the controversy titled Of Moths and Men. Hooper accused Kettlewell of fraud, though I never did; my criticism was directed primarily at textbook writers who ignored problems with the story and continued to use staged photos even after they were known to misrepresent natural conditions.

Peppered moth nonsense. Nothing here. Nonsense. 

[shadowhawk]

I noticed your evidence or total lack of any.  The peppered moth is a classic proof presented for evolution in text books everywhere. 

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 August 2014 - 10:54 PM.

[serp777]

I noticed your evidence or total lack of any.  The peppered moth is a classic proof presented for evolution in text books everywhere. 

 

I have provided ample evidence, all of which you have ignored. It would be a waste of time to post it again since you're not capable of scrolling back through pages. 

[addx]

I have given lots of evidence for ID.  I am denying nothing but the post which was not from you but addx.  So no Lie but the name calling when your point is weak is typical

 

Let the IDers speak for themselves.

 

http://intelligentde...T17_51_38-07_00

 

 

What IDers?

 

Look at the text on that link, how pathetic the argument is. It's insulting to read

 

 

 

Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. 

 

The text is advocating ID based on the fact that system engineers have now been included in "deciphering anatomy".

 

The human organism is quite a complex machine so that seems logical to me, but to shadowhawk and ID proponents this simply means the human organism is engineered. Because engineers are deciphering it. Engineers must have then created it. As have astronomers created stars and the moon and historians created history etc.

 

I find this argument quite insulting to even read. Doesn't it bother at all you to insult people with such nonsense shadowhawk?

Edited by addx, 13 August 2014 - 08:22 AM.

[shadowhawk]

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it?   When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.???  You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it!    Let me try again.

[addx]

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it?   When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.???  You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it!    Let me try again.

 

Except that YOU are NOT a painter.

 

I have evolved systems since being 11 years old. Created games with random generated solar systems, gravity, physics, enemies with AIs, stared at it for hours to see how it behaves, then make changes to AI code or random generation code and then stare at it again for hours. Think about it for nights and have done this on my own, although my father is in fact an engineer he never touched the computer or seen my work at that time. I've spent my childhood doing this. I understand evolution of systems better 99% of people in an innate way, as a child easily learns a second language.

 

So, I will not give you the authority to call out design over me. You should learn from me, not tell me what's what. Learn your place already.

 

What have YOU "painted" that gives you such authority to call out intelligent design? 

Edited by addx, 15 August 2014 - 01:43 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it?   When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.???  You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it!    Let me try again.

 

Except that YOU are NOT a painter.

 

I have evolved systems since being 11 years old. Created games with random generated solar systems, gravity, physics, enemies with AIs, stared at it for hours to see how it behaves, then make changes to AI code or random generation code and then stare at it again for hours. Think about it for nights and have done this on my own, although my father is in fact an engineer he never touched the computer or seen my work at that time. I've spent my childhood doing this. I understand evolution of systems better 99% of people in an innate way, as a child easily learns a second language.

 

So, I will not give you the authority to call out design over me. You should learn from me, not tell me what's what. Learn your place already.

 

What have YOU "painted" that gives you such authority to call out intelligent design? 

 

I did learn from  you.  You just described ID and you are the Intelligent Designer.  Well...I am not going to argue that because I haven't seen your work. 

[addx]

Well then, learn some more, life on earth was not "designed". EOD.

[serp777]

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it?   When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.???  You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it!    Let me try again.

 

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered? 

[shadowhawk]

 

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it?   When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.???  You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it!    Let me try again.

 

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered? 

 

I love the never ending fountain of name calling and logical fallacies.  It s unreasonable to think a snowflake is engineered as it would be to think a painting was not painted.  At the saim time you have not made any distinction between code and the effects of natural law.

 

[serp777]

 

 

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it?   When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.???  You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it!    Let me try again.

 

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered? 

 

I love the never ending fountain of name calling and logical fallacies.  It s unreasonable to think a snowflake is engineered as it would be to think a painting was not painted.  At the saim time you have not made any distinction between code and the effects of natural law.

 

I know, you produce that fountain like no other; it's especially amazing since it comes from your eyes in the form of tears. But i'm just pointing out how useless your analogy is. You can point out a painting, and I can point out a snowflake or geodesic dome. None of that has any relevance at all to the formation of life. At the same time your last sentence is completely irrelevant

[sthira]

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it? When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.??? You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it! Let me try again.

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered?

I love the never ending fountain of name calling and logical fallacies. It s unreasonable to think a snowflake is engineered as it would be to think a painting was not painted. At the saim time you have not made any distinction between code and the effects of natural law.

Obviously we have evidence that the elephant painted the painting; obviously we have no evidence that the god of your religion's hearty imagination created the snowflake. We have evidence for the existence of your religion's colorful stories; we have no evidence for the truth of your religion's colorful stories beyond human imagination.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it? When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.??? You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it! Let me try again.

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered?

I love the never ending fountain of name calling and logical fallacies. It s unreasonable to think a snowflake is engineered as it would be to think a painting was not painted. At the saim time you have not made any distinction between code and the effects of natural law.

Obviously we have evidence that the elephant painted the painting; obviously we have no evidence that the god of your religion's hearty imagination created the snowflake. We have evidence for the existence of your religion's colorful stories; we have no evidence for the truth of your religion's colorful stories beyond human imagination.

 

Well I have discussed the difference between crystals such as snow flakes and Intelligent Design.  They are not the same even if you imagine they are.  The painting itself is imagined and that says nothing about reality.  Imagination is part of reality.  By the way, the topic is not about God.

 

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it? When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.??? You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it! Let me try again.

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered?

I love the never ending fountain of name calling and logical fallacies. It s unreasonable to think a snowflake is engineered as it would be to think a painting was not painted. At the saim time you have not made any distinction between code and the effects of natural law.

Obviously we have evidence that the elephant painted the painting; obviously we have no evidence that the god of your religion's hearty imagination created the snowflake. We have evidence for the existence of your religion's colorful stories; we have no evidence for the truth of your religion's colorful stories beyond human imagination.

 

Well I have discussed the difference between crystals such as snow flakes and Intelligent Design.  They are not the same even if you imagine they are.  The painting itself is imagined and that says nothing about reality.  Imagination is part of reality.  By the way, the topic is not about God.

 

An none of those discussions show that your painter analogy is somehow more applicable than my snowflake analogy. Imagination is part of reality because it exists in neurons in the brain. Imagination has no effect on reality though--only reality has an effect on the imagination. Does the universe seem like a painting to you? I WOULD HOPE NOT. 

Edited by serp777, 20 August 2014 - 03:02 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

 

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it? When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.??? You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it! Let me try again.

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered?

I love the never ending fountain of name calling and logical fallacies. It s unreasonable to think a snowflake is engineered as it would be to think a painting was not painted. At the saim time you have not made any distinction between code and the effects of natural law.

Obviously we have evidence that the elephant painted the painting; obviously we have no evidence that the god of your religion's hearty imagination created the snowflake. We have evidence for the existence of your religion's colorful stories; we have no evidence for the truth of your religion's colorful stories beyond human imagination.

 

Well I have discussed the difference between crystals such as snow flakes and Intelligent Design.  They are not the same even if you imagine they are.  The painting itself is imagined and that says nothing about reality.  Imagination is part of reality.  By the way, the topic is not about God.

 

An none of those discussions show that your painter analogy is somehow more applicable than my snowflake analogy. Imagination is part of reality because it exists in neurons in the brain. Imagination has no effect on reality though--only reality has an effect on the imagination. Does the universe seem like a painting to you? I WOULD HOPE NOT. 

 

It has intelligence in it.does it not?  Does the universe seem as if it has no consciousness in it to you?  How does it seem so?

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

 

 

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it? When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.??? You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it! Let me try again.

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered?

I love the never ending fountain of name calling and logical fallacies. It s unreasonable to think a snowflake is engineered as it would be to think a painting was not painted. At the saim time you have not made any distinction between code and the effects of natural law.

Obviously we have evidence that the elephant painted the painting; obviously we have no evidence that the god of your religion's hearty imagination created the snowflake. We have evidence for the existence of your religion's colorful stories; we have no evidence for the truth of your religion's colorful stories beyond human imagination.

 

Well I have discussed the difference between crystals such as snow flakes and Intelligent Design.  They are not the same even if you imagine they are.  The painting itself is imagined and that says nothing about reality.  Imagination is part of reality.  By the way, the topic is not about God.

 

An none of those discussions show that your painter analogy is somehow more applicable than my snowflake analogy. Imagination is part of reality because it exists in neurons in the brain. Imagination has no effect on reality though--only reality has an effect on the imagination. Does the universe seem like a painting to you? I WOULD HOPE NOT. 

 

It has intelligence in it.does it not?  Does the universe seem as if it has no consciousness in it to you?  How does it seem so?

 

Obviously the universe has no consciousness. That's ridiculous. Just because there are intelligent things in something does not make it intelligent. That's like saying: well there are intelligent beings in a cave, therefore the cave is conscious and intelligent. What? Just because something resides in something else doesn't mean it has all teh same properties. 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When a painter sees a painting is it insulting to conclude a painter painted it? When an engineer sees something engineered is it insulting to think an engineer did it.??? You are insulted when a Biologist thinks an engineer may have done it! Let me try again.

The same stupid tired old argument. When a person sees a snowflake is it unreasonable to think it's not engineered?

I love the never ending fountain of name calling and logical fallacies. It s unreasonable to think a snowflake is engineered as it would be to think a painting was not painted. At the saim time you have not made any distinction between code and the effects of natural law.

Obviously we have evidence that the elephant painted the painting; obviously we have no evidence that the god of your religion's hearty imagination created the snowflake. We have evidence for the existence of your religion's colorful stories; we have no evidence for the truth of your religion's colorful stories beyond human imagination.

 

Well I have discussed the difference between crystals such as snow flakes and Intelligent Design.  They are not the same even if you imagine they are.  The painting itself is imagined and that says nothing about reality.  Imagination is part of reality.  By the way, the topic is not about God.

 

An none of those discussions show that your painter analogy is somehow more applicable than my snowflake analogy. Imagination is part of reality because it exists in neurons in the brain. Imagination has no effect on reality though--only reality has an effect on the imagination. Does the universe seem like a painting to you? I WOULD HOPE NOT. 

 

It has intelligence in it.does it not?  Does the universe seem as if it has no consciousness in it to you?  How does it seem so?

 

Obviously the universe has no consciousness. That's ridiculous. Just because there are intelligent things in something does not make it intelligent. That's like saying: well there are intelligent beings in a cave, therefore the cave is conscious and intelligent. What? Just because something resides in something else doesn't mean it has all teh same properties. 

 

Obviously you are in the universe and you are not conscious.  However I am.    I am made up of the same elements as the cosmos but how come I am aware?

[DukeNukem]

If a god did design life on Earth, why did he do such a piss-poor job with humans (and all mammals, for example), that any human surgeon or biologist could easily improve upon?

[shifter]

What have surgeons or biologists improved upon? We can make articifical limbs and some organs, but they are a far cry then better than our original. The joints and organs we are born with can last over a century if conditions are good. Are articial hips/limbs better than our biological ones? What about a heart? If you could swap yours for a artifical one, would you? We have yet to make a pancreas for diabetics, or intestines for people who have colostomy bags.

 

We dont even understand our own brains very well and have yet to make anything remotely like it. Artificial intelligence just doesn't cut it.

 

Do you think we can make Robots that are better and more capable of us? Would they have feeling and wonder?

 

I think if there was a creator, It set forth all the conditions for life, but it stops there. We are just a product of the creation of the universe. Who says God needs to be perfect? Superior perhaps but maybe whatever 'It' is, it is not omnipotent and not perfect and has no relationship with the trillions of life forms in the universe. Some believe the universe itself is God so maybe is omnipotent, but in the same way we do not have control or knowledge of the trillions of bacteria inside our own bodies, maybe God how may or may not exist on a completely different level of conciousness or dimension, may not be aware of or have control of us.