1221 replies to this topic

[serp777]

What does evidence of an intelligent designer look like, Serp777?  I would accept evolution as a fact if the gaps in the fossil record were smaller , and maybe some day they will be.  Till then, it's just a plausible theory that most scientists have faith in becoming a law.  They have faith in the gaps being filled, or some yet unknown natural mechanism being discovered to help evolution leap across the gaps.  Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis.  Anyway that is what I think the scientific evidence that would change the theory of evolution to the Law of Evolution would look like.  If there is an intelligent designer, what would the evidence look like, Serp777?    

 

Yeah i would like to know about the gaps too. I mean you propose there are gaps, but you do realize there will always be an increasing number of gaps right? Each time you find a species, you now have two gaps. but its a fallacy to suggest that this diminishes the theory whatsoever. Its more than just a probable theory. All of genetics and inheritance confirms evolution.

 

We have modern day examples like anti botics resistant bacteria that emerged in the last 30 years as an adaptive evolutionary response. There is no explanation that works other than evolution. Evolutionary theory predicted that bacteria would adapt to . This is MASSIVE evidence for evolution alone. You have a theory that makes predictions which come true, and a concept which isn't even a theory and certainly cant make a prediction.

 

I'd like to see any theory of intelligent design which proposes some experiment to test it. Until that happens its not even worth putting effort towards it.

 

Here's what an actual scientific analysis of intelligent design would look like--theory of what, who, and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life. A prediction about some genetic component that would show a pattern designed by an intelligence--like a tag encoded into the DNA or some kind of stamp/marker. For example "human version 2.167". Then you would have something. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

 

" Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis."

When you have a theory that has made huge and unexpected predictions, and it makes other predictions.

 

Also I have simple logic to prove life could emerge. There is a chemical formula which can self replicate. Organic chemicals spontaneously become more complex. Therefore it is possible for that chemical formula to come into existence through pure chance. No designer is needed. Its a low probability but the universe is massive. Therefore there is a biochemical explanation.

[serp777]

All he can do is call people names.    Let's go on.

 

All you can do is make up nonsense and assertions. Lets move on.
 

[shadowhawk]

 

What does evidence of an intelligent designer look like, Serp777?  I would accept evolution as a fact if the gaps in the fossil record were smaller , and maybe some day they will be.  Till then, it's just a plausible theory that most scientists have faith in becoming a law.  They have faith in the gaps being filled, or some yet unknown natural mechanism being discovered to help evolution leap across the gaps.  Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis.  Anyway that is what I think the scientific evidence that would change the theory of evolution to the Law of Evolution would look like.  If there is an intelligent designer, what would the evidence look like, Serp777?    

 

Yeah i would like to know about the gaps too. I mean you propose there are gaps, but you do realize there will always be an increasing number of gaps right? Each time you find a species, you now have two gaps. but its a fallacy to suggest that this diminishes the theory whatsoever. Its more than just a probable theory. All of genetics and inheritance confirms evolution.

 

We have modern day examples like anti botics resistant bacteria that emerged in the last 30 years as an adaptive evolutionary response. There is no explanation that works other than evolution. Evolutionary theory predicted that bacteria would adapt to . This is MASSIVE evidence for evolution alone. You have a theory that makes predictions which come true, and a concept which isn't even a theory and certainly cant make a prediction.

 

I'd like to see any theory of intelligent design which proposes some experiment to test it. Until that happens its not even worth putting effort towards it.

 

Here's what an actual scientific analysis of intelligent design would look like--theory of what, who, and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life. A prediction about some genetic component that would show a pattern designed by an intelligence--like a tag encoded into the DNA or some kind of stamp/marker. For example "human version 2.167". Then you would have something. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

 

" Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis."

When you have a theory that has made huge and unexpected predictions, and it makes other predictions.

 

Also I have simple logic to prove life could emerge. There is a chemical formula which can self replicate. Organic chemicals spontaneously become more complex. Therefore it is possible for that chemical formula to come into existence through pure chance. No designer is needed. Its a low probability but the universe is massive. Therefore there is a biochemical explanation.

 

There is well designed tests for ID.  Obviously you have not read the topic, "ID, in or out." here.  This had been debated.  How about dealing with real issues?  Information that creates life is far mor complex than a simple chemical reaction that a child can pull off.

[brianjakub]

I asked Serp what evidence for ID would look like. He said evolution by chance has a low probability but his logic is willing to accept it on faith. I am asking you Serp to use that same logic to imagine what evidence for ID looks like. I imagined what evidence for evolution looked like and you seemed to agree. By the way, we don't seem to need to worry about new gaps appearing in the fossil record we seem to be in a stable state of the evolutionary process right now.

Edited by brianjakub, 25 February 2015 - 12:33 AM.

[brianjakub]

 

 

What does evidence of an intelligent designer look like, Serp777?  I would accept evolution as a fact if the gaps in the fossil record were smaller , and maybe some day they will be.  Till then, it's just a plausible theory that most scientists have faith in becoming a law.  They have faith in the gaps being filled, or some yet unknown natural mechanism being discovered to help evolution leap across the gaps.  Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis.  Anyway that is what I think the scientific evidence that would change the theory of evolution to the Law of Evolution would look like.  If there is an intelligent designer, what would the evidence look like, Serp777?    

 

Yeah i would like to know about the gaps too. I mean you propose there are gaps, but you do realize there will always be an increasing number of gaps right? Each time you find a species, you now have two gaps. but its a fallacy to suggest that this diminishes the theory whatsoever. Its more than just a probable theory. All of genetics and inheritance confirms evolution.

 

We have modern day examples like anti botics resistant bacteria that emerged in the last 30 years as an adaptive evolutionary response. There is no explanation that works other than evolution. Evolutionary theory predicted that bacteria would adapt to . This is MASSIVE evidence for evolution alone. You have a theory that makes predictions which come true, and a concept which isn't even a theory and certainly cant make a prediction.

 

I'd like to see any theory of intelligent design which proposes some experiment to test it. Until that happens its not even worth putting effort towards it.

 

Here's what an actual scientific analysis of intelligent design would look like--theory of what, who, and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life. A prediction about some genetic component that would show a pattern designed by an intelligence--like a tag encoded into the DNA or some kind of stamp/marker. For example "human version 2.167". Then you would have something. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

 

" Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis."

When you have a theory that has made huge and unexpected predictions, and it makes other predictions.

 

Also I have simple logic to prove life could emerge. There is a chemical formula which can self replicate. Organic chemicals spontaneously become more complex. Therefore it is possible for that chemical formula to come into existence through pure chance. No designer is needed. Its a low probability but the universe is massive. Therefore there is a biochemical explanation.

 

There is well designed tests for ID.  Obviously you have not read the topic, "ID, in or out." here.  This had been debated.  How about dealing with real issues?  Information that creates life is far mor complex than a simple chemical reaction that a child can pull off.

 

Serp 777, earlier you said that ID is not science and scientific theories for ID are not valid.  Are you saying you would accept one now?  It will take some effort and logical thinking to come up with a scientifically testable theory.  I could give it a try I guess.  Would you like to try?  You said you'd like to see a theory and theories require effort, and in the same sentence you say it isn't worth putting effort towards it.  But, I would hope that you are open minded enough to at least let me put forth the effort, and then at least consider looking at my theory. 

 

Like you said Serp 777, I would like to propose a theory of what who and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life.  The who might be dangerous though, what if I propose an existing designer or introduce a new designer?  You have pointed out that ideas about designers have caused wars.(and I agree but, there has been some good results too)  Maybe you might want me to leave that out even though you proposed it should be included in what a scientific theory would look like. 

 

 2.167 is a number, and numbers in tags contain information in a code.  The whole DNA is a code, and they are mapping it right now.  It's full of tags.  One tag says human version blue eyes blonde hair, another says human version dark skin brown eyes.  Maybe Brown hair and blue eyes is version 2.167.

 

Earlier you said the whole fossil record is evidence of evolution,  maybe every specie's DNA is evidence of ID.  Note that I said maybe, because theories aren't laws, they are a maybe, and macro evolution by random mutations is still a theory, not a law.  You did give a nice example of micro evolution with the bacteria above though.  Micro evolution by random mutations is just selective breeding by chance, and is much closer to being a law than macro evolution though.  We see selective breeding every day, but breeding a new species I haven't seen yet.  But, like I said earlier, that could be because I am living during one of Stephen Gould's proposed periods of Stable Equilibrium, but a Punctuation of Change could be around the corner.  I will not rule that out Serp 777.  Could you at least look at my proposal and not rule it out without consideration? 

Edited by brianjakub, 25 February 2015 - 04:42 AM.

[addx]

The reason why creationists are able to pitch the idea of I.D. is because they always fail to define intelligence in a scientific manner which should be chapter one of any I.D. theory.

My theory is actually I.D. except completely anticreationst. And my idea works.

There is no design as in 'plan', this is purposefully misleading.

Human plans are not created in an instant but are selected, recombined from previous sequenced (synaptic) knowledge and evolved in the sandbox of our imagination until completion. They can even be exported onto media then.

Evolution (genomic processes) has to preform its evolution of design in the real sandbox that is the universe and it can't "stop to think". It also recombines, mutates and selects previous sequenced (genetic) knowledge as does human intelligence. This then means it's not "all chance". Evolution makes better and better decisions on how to evolve further. Mutations are provoked as a stress response and targeted towards a part of the genome involved in the stress for example. Genomic processes themselves make sure mutations happens mostly in places in the genome where they can produce meaningful and desired changes considering the tracked past experience in applying the genome.

If you were a human or god "running evolution" and you were forced to make decisions on-the-fly (as evolution is) with no allowed time to plan (evolve and select ideas in head), you wouldn't really make any better choices than evolution. So in that sense, evolution is intelligent as a human would be running it on-the-fly with no time to think. And in order for life to become even more intelligent it eventually evolved the human brain which has a capacity to plan an action before commencing.

The misconceptions about evolution rise from a complete misunderstanding of the terms intelligence and also scientific misrepresentation. Evolution is "not all chance" as emphasized by science. Generating permutations via mutations as variety and then selecting what works out of it is a process required by all intelligences (even human) and if this process is actively controlled, focused, directed in response to events than it is more adaptive than just "all chance" - and so it has (maybe weak) intelligence - as opposed to pure chance.

If we define intelligence as 2 traverse T2 adaptive system http://www.danko-nik...and-t3-systems/, than even prokaryotes are intelligent in their adaptive scheme.

T2 means:
There's an algorithm A making choices better than random
There's an algorithm B adapting algorithm A better than random (under conditions that render algorithm A to make poorer choices than random).

This is the basis of adaptive intelligence and even prokaryotes show it. Most basic focused adaptation is DNA->RNA replicative stress marking for mutation. Many experiments show "faster-than-expected" evolution, because the genome is not adapted completely randomly but parts of it are aimed, mutations provoked, maybe even types of mutations (special mutators).


It needs to be understood - life is self replication, a self-replicating pattern. Self-replication is also the basic form self-awareness as during self-replication the entity is able to identify itself from not-self in its entirety and produce and a complete understanding of itself in the form of the produced replica.

With this framework of understanding. Simple adaptive intelligence and basic self-awareness from prokaryotes all the way to the extreme adaptive intelligence of mammals and especially humans and also the self-awareness of humans.

I also have to comment the often used creationist analogy with the copying machine only losing data/genes with respect to this. The correct analogy would be using a handheld OCR device to copy a piece of newspaper. That's much closer to how mutation error produces new sequences, rather than "loses" them. I'm sure most people when reading columns skip a row of text by accident and read a wrong part of the sentence but it still makes some sense. So combine that with the fact that these mutations are controlled in intensity and location of the genome and you get "smarter than pure chance adaptation" - intelligence.

So this explanation pretty much cuts down this argument as it explains the diversity of life as an intelligent process, but alas, for creationists, this intelligent proccess is still simply an increase of entropy, not a divine intervention in any way.

Edited by addx, 27 February 2015 - 10:36 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I am sorry but ID theorists have defined ID and developed ways for testing for it as we have already posted in this thread,  No use going back over it again.

[serp777]

I asked Serp what evidence for ID would look like. He said evolution by chance has a low probability but his logic is willing to accept it on faith. I am asking you Serp to use that same logic to imagine what evidence for ID looks like. I imagined what evidence for evolution looked like and you seemed to agree. By the way, we don't seem to need to worry about new gaps appearing in the fossil record we seem to be in a stable state of the evolutionary process right now.

 

No, I said the emergence of life has a low probability of spontaneously forming in an instant. I said it has a very high chance of developing because there are 10^80 atoms and 13.7 billion years of time to form one combination of molecules which is able to replicate. It, in fact, becomes reasonably likely that you would see life at least once since we know there is a molecular configuration which does self replicate.

 

"we seem to be in a stable state of the evolutionary process right now."

Evolution occurs over millions and hundreds of millions of years. Its apparently stable because human society has only been around for 6000 years. You only get small jumps in that time like anti biotic resistant bacteria, or humans which develop a tolerance for lactose, etc. In fact evolutionary concepts can be applied to culture--cultural evolution is analogous and simulates, at a faster pace, evolution.

 

"I am asking you Serp to use that same logic to imagine what evidence for ID looks like."

I did imagine what evidence would exist--a genetic bar code, or an identitication tag which would be inconsistent with the evolutionary process. A genetic structure that when converted into binary would be a special message revealing that an alien species intervened in the gene pool.

[serp777]

 

 

 

What does evidence of an intelligent designer look like, Serp777?  I would accept evolution as a fact if the gaps in the fossil record were smaller , and maybe some day they will be.  Till then, it's just a plausible theory that most scientists have faith in becoming a law.  They have faith in the gaps being filled, or some yet unknown natural mechanism being discovered to help evolution leap across the gaps.  Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis.  Anyway that is what I think the scientific evidence that would change the theory of evolution to the Law of Evolution would look like.  If there is an intelligent designer, what would the evidence look like, Serp777?    

 

Yeah i would like to know about the gaps too. I mean you propose there are gaps, but you do realize there will always be an increasing number of gaps right? Each time you find a species, you now have two gaps. but its a fallacy to suggest that this diminishes the theory whatsoever. Its more than just a probable theory. All of genetics and inheritance confirms evolution.

 

We have modern day examples like anti botics resistant bacteria that emerged in the last 30 years as an adaptive evolutionary response. There is no explanation that works other than evolution. Evolutionary theory predicted that bacteria would adapt to . This is MASSIVE evidence for evolution alone. You have a theory that makes predictions which come true, and a concept which isn't even a theory and certainly cant make a prediction.

 

I'd like to see any theory of intelligent design which proposes some experiment to test it. Until that happens its not even worth putting effort towards it.

 

Here's what an actual scientific analysis of intelligent design would look like--theory of what, who, and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life. A prediction about some genetic component that would show a pattern designed by an intelligence--like a tag encoded into the DNA or some kind of stamp/marker. For example "human version 2.167". Then you would have something. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

 

" Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis."

When you have a theory that has made huge and unexpected predictions, and it makes other predictions.

 

Also I have simple logic to prove life could emerge. There is a chemical formula which can self replicate. Organic chemicals spontaneously become more complex. Therefore it is possible for that chemical formula to come into existence through pure chance. No designer is needed. Its a low probability but the universe is massive. Therefore there is a biochemical explanation.

 

There is well designed tests for ID.  Obviously you have not read the topic, "ID, in or out." here.  This had been debated.  How about dealing with real issues?  Information that creates life is far mor complex than a simple chemical reaction that a child can pull off.

 

Serp 777, earlier you said that ID is not science and scientific theories for ID are not valid.  Are you saying you would accept one now?  It will take some effort and logical thinking to come up with a scientifically testable theory.  I could give it a try I guess.  Would you like to try?  You said you'd like to see a theory and theories require effort, and in the same sentence you say it isn't worth putting effort towards it.  But, I would hope that you are open minded enough to at least let me put forth the effort, and then at least consider looking at my theory. 

 

Like you said Serp 777, I would like to propose a theory of what who and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life.  The who might be dangerous though, what if I propose an existing designer or introduce a new designer?  You have pointed out that ideas about designers have caused wars.(and I agree but, there has been some good results too)  Maybe you might want me to leave that out even though you proposed it should be included in what a scientific theory would look like. 

 

 2.167 is a number, and numbers in tags contain information in a code.  The whole DNA is a code, and they are mapping it right now.  It's full of tags.  One tag says human version blue eyes blonde hair, another says human version dark skin brown eyes.  Maybe Brown hair and blue eyes is version 2.167.

 

Earlier you said the whole fossil record is evidence of evolution,  maybe every specie's DNA is evidence of ID.  Note that I said maybe, because theories aren't laws, they are a maybe, and macro evolution by random mutations is still a theory, not a law.  You did give a nice example of micro evolution with the bacteria above though.  Micro evolution by random mutations is just selective breeding by chance, and is much closer to being a law than macro evolution though.  We see selective breeding every day, but breeding a new species I haven't seen yet.  But, like I said earlier, that could be because I am living during one of Stephen Gould's proposed periods of Stable Equilibrium, but a Punctuation of Change could be around the corner.  I will not rule that out Serp 777.  Could you at least look at my proposal and not rule it out without consideration? 

 

I already stated I would accept an intelligent design theory that had even a minimum amount of evidence to establish a hypothesis. Currently there is no need for intelligent design, and all the evidence points towards evolution. It would be pointless to pursue unintelligent design. There are also logical problems like who designed the desinger? You get an infinite regression. At some point an intelligence had to emerge out of natural means.

 

"2.167 is a number, and numbers in tags contain information in a code.  The whole DNA is a code, and they are mapping it right now.  It's full of tags.  One tag says human version blue eyes blonde hair, another says human version dark skin brown eyes.  Maybe Brown hair and blue eyes is version 2.167."

Except this is consistent with evolutionary theory already. You're still left with the problem of how the alien race that IDed us developed in the first place. You could convert the molecular structure for a rock into a number and say that was an identification. Your argument is entirely unconvincing just because you can convert things to numbers. Now if you find a message in binary which is written into the genetic code then that would be real evidence. It could still be coincidence but that would be some evidence at least. And you're still left with who designed the designer, ad infinitum.

 

"Earlier you said the whole fossil record is evidence of evolution,  maybe every specie's DNA is evidence of ID.  Note that I said maybe, because theories aren't laws, they are a maybe, and macro evolution by random mutations is still a theory, not a law.  You did give a nice example of micro evolution with the bacteria above though.  Micro evolution by random mutations is just selective breeding by chance, and is much closer to being a law than macro evolution though."

 

This kind of argument is awful, sorry. Its like saying " well all you have is a lot of the decimal 0.0005, how are you going to get to one?" Its obvious--when that occurs 2000 times you'll have a one. Its like saying--i've only seen hundreds of dollars in transactions, so i only believe in microeconomics. Therefore macroeconomics doesn't exist and the large scale economy isn't real. its, no offense, naive and short sighted to say that micro evolution doesn't heavily imply macro.

 

" Could you at least look at my proposal and not rule it out without consideration?"

I am open to anything with the evidence. So far things like brown hair have already been well established under mechanisms of evolution. There are still logical chasms like who designed the designer. You guys postulate than an intelligence needs more complexity before it which leads to infinite regression. At least at some point an intelligence had to emerge out of simple laws.

 

[shadowhawk]

Here are a couple of sources and I have posted many others before on this topic.  Look back.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

See the book by Atheist Thomas Nagel
“Mind & Cosmos.”
http://www.amazon.co..._sl_xd0e7dq3f_e
 

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 February 2015 - 10:16 PM.

[serp777]

Here are a couple of sources and I have posted many others before on this topic.  Look back.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

See the book by Atheist Thomas Nagel
“Mind & Cosmos.”
http://www.amazon.co..._sl_xd0e7dq3f_e
 

 Looked at the first link and one of the articles claimed that anti biotic resistant bacteria aren't indicative of evolution. Wow. This website cannot be taken seriously when full of such garbage. You can't just post a link to some random website. I can do this to:

 

http://rationalwiki....elligent_design

 

http://www.physics.s...elligentDesign/

 

http://www.skepticin...lligent-design/

 

Well I guess I just countered all your website evidence with my own website evidence.

You also don't accept facts, so why are your arguments relevant? You keep talking about the problem of complexity of evolution when I've shown you evolutionary computer programs that compete for cpu and memory usage. There programs gain new information and strategies. Your pitifully bad rebuttal to this was that its intelligent design since humans made the computer. But its so terrible because you can simulate a neutron star or a supernovae on a computer, but that DOESN'T mean the neutron star or supernova was intelligently designed. Obviously they weren't.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ary_computation

 

Evolutionary computation proves evolution is a valid concept.
 

[shadowhawk]

 

Here are a couple of sources and I have posted many others before on this topic.  Look back.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

See the book by Atheist Thomas Nagel
“Mind & Cosmos.”
http://www.amazon.co..._sl_xd0e7dq3f_e
 

 Looked at the first link and one of the articles claimed that anti biotic resistant bacteria aren't indicative of evolution. Wow. This website cannot be taken seriously when full of such garbage. You can't just post a link to some random website. I can do this to:

 

http://rationalwiki....elligent_design

 

http://www.physics.s...elligentDesign/

 

http://www.skepticin...lligent-design/

 

Well I guess I just countered all your website evidence with my own website evidence.

You also don't accept facts, so why are your arguments relevant? You keep talking about the problem of complexity of evolution when I've shown you evolutionary computer programs that compete for cpu and memory usage. There programs gain new information and strategies. Your pitifully bad rebuttal to this was that its intelligent design since humans made the computer. But its so terrible because you can simulate a neutron star or a supernovae on a computer, but that DOESN'T mean the neutron star or supernova was intelligently designed. Obviously they weren't.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ary_computation

 

Evolutionary computation proves evolution is a valid concept.
 

 

I am not trying to rebut you.  Some bacteria being resistant to some things does not prove evolution.  The reader will have to follow the argument.  http://www.evolution...ofte093951.html

Nor did I say evolution was not a valid concept just as I think ID is one as well and the topic is whether ID is a subject of science.  I argue, yes.  I don't expect you to get it.

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 February 2015 - 12:28 AM.

[shadowhawk]

You may also enjoy their podcasts.  http://www.podomatic...telligentdesign

 

[addx]

I am sorry but ID theorists have defined ID and developed ways for testing for it as we have already posted in this thread,  No use going back over it again.

No use in talking to you, you like a broken record.

I am posting towards the topic.

But since you're spamming my mailbox with your ignorance I have to unsubscribe..

Edited by addx, 28 February 2015 - 04:02 PM.

[platypus]

Since there are no Gods who would the "Intelligent Designer" be? 

Edited by platypus, 28 February 2015 - 04:25 PM.

[serp777]

 

 

Here are a couple of sources and I have posted many others before on this topic.  Look back.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

See the book by Atheist Thomas Nagel
“Mind & Cosmos.”
http://www.amazon.co..._sl_xd0e7dq3f_e
 

 Looked at the first link and one of the articles claimed that anti biotic resistant bacteria aren't indicative of evolution. Wow. This website cannot be taken seriously when full of such garbage. You can't just post a link to some random website. I can do this to:

 

http://rationalwiki....elligent_design

 

http://www.physics.s...elligentDesign/

 

http://www.skepticin...lligent-design/

 

Well I guess I just countered all your website evidence with my own website evidence.

You also don't accept facts, so why are your arguments relevant? You keep talking about the problem of complexity of evolution when I've shown you evolutionary computer programs that compete for cpu and memory usage. There programs gain new information and strategies. Your pitifully bad rebuttal to this was that its intelligent design since humans made the computer. But its so terrible because you can simulate a neutron star or a supernovae on a computer, but that DOESN'T mean the neutron star or supernova was intelligently designed. Obviously they weren't.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ary_computation

 

Evolutionary computation proves evolution is a valid concept.
 

 

I am not trying to rebut you.  Some bacteria being resistant to some things does not prove evolution.  The reader will have to follow the argument.  http://www.evolution...ofte093951.html

Nor did I say evolution was not a valid concept just as I think ID is one as well and the topic is whether ID is a subject of science.  I argue, yes.  I don't expect you to get it.

 

 

Actually the startling number of bacteria species which have become immune to anti biotics in the last 50 years, and didn't previously have that immunity, certainly shows evolution. The bacteria adapted to the environment, and mutations eventually lead to a select few bacteria to survive an anti biotic dosage, which were more resistant to the anti biotic. Evolutionary biologists predicted that bacteria would become immune to anti biotics as a result of increased anti biotic usage, especially improper anti biotic usage. India has the highest prevalence of improper anti biotic usage, and hence they have the highest prevalence of antibiotic resistant staff infections.

 

There is also anti biotic resistant tuberculosis in Africa which is devastating lives. A website that denies these obvious facts is clearly an unreliable source and SHOULD NOT  BE ACCEPTED.

 

"I don't expect you to get it."

Its not about getting it or not, its simply baseless and irrelevant when there's a perfectly good theory which has made great strides in explaining the various features of different organisms. Perhaps you haven't understood why ID is unnecessary.  Evolution has explained so much that its highly probable that it will explain the remaining holes in biology like how exactly mitochondrial emerged, how RNA transitioned to DNA, the first self replicating molecule, etc. There's no need to add a vastly more complicated designer which would require an even more elaborate and complicated explanations. And you would have to explain how the designer emerged in the first place. No where in the universe have we seen complexity just popping into existence without simple rules and laws which lead to its existence first. Everything in the universe goes from originally simple beginnings to complexity. The big bang itself was very simple, homogenous, and symmetrical, which then transitioned in more complex states because of entropy. Just like the evolutionary process.

 

"Nor did I say evolution was not a valid concept"

Well you certainly implied it by talking about the so called problem of new information and complexity from simple beginnings.

Edited by serp777, 01 March 2015 - 01:31 AM.

[serp777]

 

I am sorry but ID theorists have defined ID and developed ways for testing for it as we have already posted in this thread,  No use going back over it again.

No use in talking to you, you like a broken record.

I am posting towards the topic.

But since you're spamming my mailbox with your ignorance I have to unsubscribe..

 

Ill answer for him with his predictable and futile reply:

 

"Typical, more ad hominem. ID is in. "

 

[brianjakub]

 

 

 

 

What does evidence of an intelligent designer look like, Serp777?  I would accept evolution as a fact if the gaps in the fossil record were smaller , and maybe some day they will be.  Till then, it's just a plausible theory that most scientists have faith in becoming a law.  They have faith in the gaps being filled, or some yet unknown natural mechanism being discovered to help evolution leap across the gaps.  Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis.  Anyway that is what I think the scientific evidence that would change the theory of evolution to the Law of Evolution would look like.  If there is an intelligent designer, what would the evidence look like, Serp777?    

 

Yeah i would like to know about the gaps too. I mean you propose there are gaps, but you do realize there will always be an increasing number of gaps right? Each time you find a species, you now have two gaps. but its a fallacy to suggest that this diminishes the theory whatsoever. Its more than just a probable theory. All of genetics and inheritance confirms evolution.

 

We have modern day examples like anti botics resistant bacteria that emerged in the last 30 years as an adaptive evolutionary response. There is no explanation that works other than evolution. Evolutionary theory predicted that bacteria would adapt to . This is MASSIVE evidence for evolution alone. You have a theory that makes predictions which come true, and a concept which isn't even a theory and certainly cant make a prediction.

 

I'd like to see any theory of intelligent design which proposes some experiment to test it. Until that happens its not even worth putting effort towards it.

 

Here's what an actual scientific analysis of intelligent design would look like--theory of what, who, and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life. A prediction about some genetic component that would show a pattern designed by an intelligence--like a tag encoded into the DNA or some kind of stamp/marker. For example "human version 2.167". Then you would have something. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

 

" Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis."

When you have a theory that has made huge and unexpected predictions, and it makes other predictions.

 

Also I have simple logic to prove life could emerge. There is a chemical formula which can self replicate. Organic chemicals spontaneously become more complex. Therefore it is possible for that chemical formula to come into existence through pure chance. No designer is needed. Its a low probability but the universe is massive. Therefore there is a biochemical explanation.

 

There is well designed tests for ID.  Obviously you have not read the topic, "ID, in or out." here.  This had been debated.  How about dealing with real issues?  Information that creates life is far mor complex than a simple chemical reaction that a child can pull off.

 

Serp 777, earlier you said that ID is not science and scientific theories for ID are not valid.  Are you saying you would accept one now?  It will take some effort and logical thinking to come up with a scientifically testable theory.  I could give it a try I guess.  Would you like to try?  You said you'd like to see a theory and theories require effort, and in the same sentence you say it isn't worth putting effort towards it.  But, I would hope that you are open minded enough to at least let me put forth the effort, and then at least consider looking at my theory. 

 

Like you said Serp 777, I would like to propose a theory of what who and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life.  The who might be dangerous though, what if I propose an existing designer or introduce a new designer?  You have pointed out that ideas about designers have caused wars.(and I agree but, there has been some good results too)  Maybe you might want me to leave that out even though you proposed it should be included in what a scientific theory would look like. 

 

 2.167 is a number, and numbers in tags contain information in a code.  The whole DNA is a code, and they are mapping it right now.  It's full of tags.  One tag says human version blue eyes blonde hair, another says human version dark skin brown eyes.  Maybe Brown hair and blue eyes is version 2.167.

 

Earlier you said the whole fossil record is evidence of evolution,  maybe every specie's DNA is evidence of ID.  Note that I said maybe, because theories aren't laws, they are a maybe, and macro evolution by random mutations is still a theory, not a law.  You did give a nice example of micro evolution with the bacteria above though.  Micro evolution by random mutations is just selective breeding by chance, and is much closer to being a law than macro evolution though.  We see selective breeding every day, but breeding a new species I haven't seen yet.  But, like I said earlier, that could be because I am living during one of Stephen Gould's proposed periods of Stable Equilibrium, but a Punctuation of Change could be around the corner.  I will not rule that out Serp 777.  Could you at least look at my proposal and not rule it out without consideration? 

 

I already stated I would accept an intelligent design theory that had even a minimum amount of evidence to establish a hypothesis. Currently there is no need for intelligent design, and all the evidence points towards evolution. It would be pointless to pursue unintelligent design. There are also logical problems like who designed the desinger? You get an infinite regression. At some point an intelligence had to emerge out of natural means.

 

"2.167 is a number, and numbers in tags contain information in a code.  The whole DNA is a code, and they are mapping it right now.  It's full of tags.  One tag says human version blue eyes blonde hair, another says human version dark skin brown eyes.  Maybe Brown hair and blue eyes is version 2.167."

Except this is consistent with evolutionary theory already. You're still left with the problem of how the alien race that IDed us developed in the first place. You could convert the molecular structure for a rock into a number and say that was an identification. Your argument is entirely unconvincing just because you can convert things to numbers. Now if you find a message in binary which is written into the genetic code then that would be real evidence. It could still be coincidence but that would be some evidence at least. And you're still left with who designed the designer, ad infinitum.

 

"Earlier you said the whole fossil record is evidence of evolution,  maybe every specie's DNA is evidence of ID.  Note that I said maybe, because theories aren't laws, they are a maybe, and macro evolution by random mutations is still a theory, not a law.  You did give a nice example of micro evolution with the bacteria above though.  Micro evolution by random mutations is just selective breeding by chance, and is much closer to being a law than macro evolution though."

 

This kind of argument is awful, sorry. Its like saying " well all you have is a lot of the decimal 0.0005, how are you going to get to one?" Its obvious--when that occurs 2000 times you'll have a one. Its like saying--i've only seen hundreds of dollars in transactions, so i only believe in microeconomics. Therefore macroeconomics doesn't exist and the large scale economy isn't real. its, no offense, naive and short sighted to say that micro evolution doesn't heavily imply macro.

 

" Could you at least look at my proposal and not rule it out without consideration?"

I am open to anything with the evidence. So far things like brown hair have already been well established under mechanisms of evolution. There are still logical chasms like who designed the designer. You guys postulate than an intelligence needs more complexity before it which leads to infinite regression. At least at some point an intelligence had to emerge out of simple laws.

 

Bacteria evolving into bacteria is not macro evolution, they are still bacteria.  American Indians were susceptible to small pox while Europeans were immune, that is micro-evolution  inside the human species.  Three 1 dollar bills does not prove the existence of a three dollar bill.  A pile of micro evolution does not equal complexity, it equals diversity.

 

 How does a self replicating, single celled organism evolve into a multi celled organism with a womb and a reproductive system that produces an egg while another single celled organism evolved into a multi celled organism with a penis and produced sperm cells. And, while all that evolving is going on simultaneously without any guidance, they become sexually attracted to each other and copulate.  Now, maybe that happened by chance, but please don't compare that to bacteria evolving into bacteria.  Over the tens of thousands of years that man has been breeding animals, we have yet to see one species evolve into another.  All we have is very intelligent men, like Stephen Gould, saying they can imagine a word that" names" a natural explanation that can explain how this evolution can happen and match the fossil record, but all they really do is invent words like "punctuated equilibrium" to try and explain the stable periods in the fossil record followed by sudden evolutionary jumps.

The fossil record[edit]

The fossil record of an evolutionary progression typically consists of species that suddenly appear, and ultimately disappear, in many cases close to a million years later, without any change in external appearance.

 But, this requires a rapid mode of evolution because of the periods of stasis' So other intelligent men imagine more words naming another natural mechanism to explain Gould's unexplained but named mechanism

Supplemental modes of rapid evolution[edit]

See also: Rapid modes of evolution

Recent work in developmental biology has identified dynamical and physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis that may underlie abrupt morphological transitions during evolution. Consequently, consideration of mechanisms of phylogenetic change that have been found in reality to be non-gradual is increasingly common in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, particularly in studies of the origin of morphological novelty. A description of such mechanisms can be found in the multi-authored volume Origination of Organismal Form (MIT Press; 2003).

 

Origination of Organismal Form

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology (ISBN 0-262-13419-5) is a book published in 2003 edited by Gerd B. Müller and Stuart A. Newman. It explores the multiple factors that may have been responsible for the origination of biological form in multicellular life. These biological forms include limbs, segmented structures, and different body symmetries.

The book explores why the basic body plans of nearly all multicellular life arose in the relatively short time span of the Cambrian Explosion. The authors focus on physical factors other than changes in an organism's genome that may have caused multicellular life to form new structures. These physical factors include differential adhesion of cells and feedback oscillations between cells.

The book also presents recent experimental results that examine how the same embryonic tissues or tumor cells can be coaxed into forming dramatically different structures under different environmental conditions.

One of the goals of the book is to stimulate research that may lead to a more comprehensive theory of evolution.

 

As you can see a comprehensive theory of evolution with evidence of actual natural mechanisms doesn't exist, but we should keep looking.

 

I don't understand why a tag has to be written in base 2 to provide evidence of ID. 

If there is an intelligent designer, could we assume for developing a theory, that the designer might be a person? (Not necessarily human)  And could we assume it,( he or she} thinks like us.  This might help us to theorize how, he (she or it) designed and built it, to determine where to look for evidence, and to interpret the evidence.

[addx]

Experimental evolution of multicellularity has been achieved and observed

http://www.pnas.org/...5/1595.abstract

http://www.nature.co...ncomms3742.html



Now, whenever scientists actually do what creationists supposedly "dare" them to - provide a "rerun" of evolution - when they fail, creationst say 'there!', when they succeed - creationists simply say this proves intelligent design since scientists setup the experiment... so it's really creationsm FTW!!!!!

[shadowhawk]

 

No use in talking to you, you like a broken record.

I am posting towards the topic.

But since you're spamming my mailbox with your ignorance I have to unsubscribe..

 

Typical post that says nothing. 

 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

Here are a couple of sources and I have posted many others before on this topic.  Look back.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://www.intellige...rg/whatisid.php

See the book by Atheist Thomas Nagel
“Mind & Cosmos.”
http://www.amazon.co..._sl_xd0e7dq3f_e
 

 Looked at the first link and one of the articles claimed that anti biotic resistant bacteria aren't indicative of evolution. Wow. This website cannot be taken seriously when full of such garbage. You can't just post a link to some random website. I can do this to:

 

http://rationalwiki....elligent_design

 

http://www.physics.s...elligentDesign/

 

http://www.skepticin...lligent-design/

 

Well I guess I just countered all your website evidence with my own website evidence.

You also don't accept facts, so why are your arguments relevant? You keep talking about the problem of complexity of evolution when I've shown you evolutionary computer programs that compete for cpu and memory usage. There programs gain new information and strategies. Your pitifully bad rebuttal to this was that its intelligent design since humans made the computer. But its so terrible because you can simulate a neutron star or a supernovae on a computer, but that DOESN'T mean the neutron star or supernova was intelligently designed. Obviously they weren't.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ary_computation

 

Evolutionary computation proves evolution is a valid concept.
 

 

I am not trying to rebut you.  Some bacteria being resistant to some things does not prove evolution.  The reader will have to follow the argument.  http://www.evolution...ofte093951.html

Nor did I say evolution was not a valid concept just as I think ID is one as well and the topic is whether ID is a subject of science.  I argue, yes.  I don't expect you to get it.

 

 

Actually the startling number of bacteria species which have become immune to anti biotics in the last 50 years, and didn't previously have that immunity, certainly shows evolution. The bacteria adapted to the environment, and mutations eventually lead to a select few bacteria to survive an anti biotic dosage, which were more resistant to the anti biotic. Evolutionary biologists predicted that bacteria would become immune to anti biotics as a result of increased anti biotic usage, especially improper anti biotic usage. India has the highest prevalence of improper anti biotic usage, and hence they have the highest prevalence of antibiotic resistant staff infections.

 

There is also anti biotic resistant tuberculosis in Africa which is devastating lives. A website that denies these obvious facts is clearly an unreliable source and SHOULD NOT  BE ACCEPTED.

 

"I don't expect you to get it."

Its not about getting it or not, its simply baseless and irrelevant when there's a perfectly good theory which has made great strides in explaining the various features of different organisms. Perhaps you haven't understood why ID is unnecessary.  Evolution has explained so much that its highly probable that it will explain the remaining holes in biology like how exactly mitochondrial emerged, how RNA transitioned to DNA, the first self replicating molecule, etc. There's no need to add a vastly more complicated designer which would require an even more elaborate and complicated explanations. And you would have to explain how the designer emerged in the first place. No where in the universe have we seen complexity just popping into existence without simple rules and laws which lead to its existence first. Everything in the universe goes from originally simple beginnings to complexity. The big bang itself was very simple, homogenous, and symmetrical, which then transitioned in more complex states because of entropy. Just like the evolutionary process.

 

"Nor did I say evolution was not a valid concept"

Well you certainly implied it by talking about the so called problem of new information and complexity from simple beginnings.

 

You are talking to yourself.  The topic is about whether ID is a subject of Science.  I have argued it is.

[shadowhawk]

Experimental evolution of multicellularity has been achieved and observed

http://www.pnas.org/...5/1595.abstract

http://www.nature.co...ncomms3742.html



Now, whenever scientists actually do what creationists supposedly "dare" them to - provide a "rerun" of evolution - when they fail, creationst say 'there!', when they succeed - creationists simply say this proves intelligent design since scientists setup the experiment... so it's really creationsm FTW!!!!!

I hope you know the difference between ID and Creation.  Sounds like you don't.

[brianjakub]

I agree that evolution to multi cellular yeast is possible but, evolution from single celled asexually reproducling animals to multicellular heterosexually reproducing animals, requires a complex male reproductive system and a complex female reproductive system to evolve simultaneously, and then those two animals need to be programmed, or learn to have sexual intercourse. I think that is statistically harder to do by chance than to evolve an eyeball. Anyway, mathematically it seems impossible, and evidence of transitions in the fossil record is non existant for one animal, let alone all the different types of heterosexual reproduction( spawning, egg laying, nursing, womb, etc...), but evolutionary scientists still accept Darwinian evolution as the only viable scientific possibility for a theory. For some reason there seems to be a biult in bias here. Can we try to look past this possible bias, and ask how a designer might have done it without bringing in religion? I think yes. I think I can talk scientifically about anything somebody designed without talking about that person's religions beliefs. Granted, like talking about the design of a guillotine or chemotherapy without talking about their purpose, talking about ID could be a little tough without brining in some talk of purpose, I think we cankeep it scientific.
So, can we step away from what's right and wrong with darwinian evolution for a bit and see if we can come up with a theory that either works through evolution with intelligent guidance or some other mechanism. Could we make an assumption for now that if there is an IDER he thinks logically similar to us?

[addx]

No use in talking to you, you like a broken record.

I am posting towards the topic.

But since you're spamming my mailbox with your ignorance I have to unsubscribe..

Typical post that says nothing.

No, I actually wrote a post that supports I.D.

http://www.longecity...-32#entry716149

But since it simultaneously does not support creationism, you didn't comment it, which proves this topic to be about creationism and not about I.D..

Yet you find time to comment empty posts, because you like to use them to make false points.

You don't address arguments at all in this thread, you've been told this by 10 separate people at 10 separate times. So, the only thing typical here is your ignorance.

Edited by addx, 03 March 2015 - 06:55 AM.

[addx]

I agree that evolution to multi cellular yeast is possible but, evolution from single celled asexually reproducling animals to multicellular heterosexually reproducing animals, requires a complex male reproductive system and a complex female reproductive system to evolve simultaneously, and then those two animals need to be programmed, or learn to have sexual intercourse.

Yes it does require them to evolve simultaneously but not instantaneously. Your expectation is therefore invalid and misleading in this argument.

Read my post http://www.longecity...-32#entry716149 to see that there genomic evolution is "increasingly aided" (as in Computer Aided Design) by existing evolved structures and so evolution is smarter than expected from stressing the randomness of it.
 

I think that is statistically harder to do by chance than to evolve an eyeball. Anyway, mathematically it seems impossible, and evidence of transitions in the fossil record is non existant for one animal, let alone all the different types of heterosexual reproduction( spawning, egg laying, nursing, womb, etc...), but evolutionary scientists still accept Darwinian evolution as the only viable scientific possibility for a theory.

This is simply self-blinding.

The biggest evolutionary leap is the evolution of genetic sexual reproduction itself and of the eukaryote cell. Compared to that, evolution of the reproductive organs is straightforward and obvious.

The first sexually reproducing single celled life required (chemical) signalling and genetic/molecular scaffolds to perform sexual reproduction. It requires recognizing your own status for fertilization, recognizing your partner as compatible and also ready for sexual reproduction, and communication coordinating the reproduction process. This is the basic paradigm that evolved through multicellularity. So "sexual attraction" has been there since inception, it did not evolve suddenly in humans or mammals. All the basic behavior is there since inception. The communication and state/species/compatibility detection is a scaffold for sexual selection. "Newer" animals can refuse copulation if deemed unworthy or have to compete for copulation - this is evolved control of the sexual reproduction process towards a greater end result -> better selection means better variety is retained in the pool.

Now saying that there are no transitions in the fossil record is simply so misleading that it's hard to stay polite. You don't even need the fossil record, you have all the animals showing the transitions alive and kicking today.

From the simplest multicellular reproductions of animals like the hydra to the reproductive organs of humans. You can literally see animals existing without any part of the current mammalian reproductive tract. You can see animals (and plants) that have an option to sexually reproduce, and can do it asexually. You have evolutionary older animals being hermaphrodite, you have animals that change their sex with temperature or other ambient conditions and lifeforms that are able to have sex with themselves. Both plants and animals evolved food supply for their "seed" in the form of the egg or a fruit. You also have animals that hold eggs within themselves till they hatch, you have all variants of egg laying and nurturing etc.

Why would the evolution of limbs be any more "straightforward" than the evolution of a penis? It took like a billion years for the mammalian reproductive tract to evolve from the more simpler variants.

Sexual reproduction is a way of producing, selecting and retaining good genetic variety in the genetic pool. Some lifeforms are literally able to do this without a partner.

 

For some reason there seems to be a biult in bias here. Can we try to look past this possible bias, and ask how a designer might have done it without bringing in religion? I think yes. I think I can talk scientifically about anything somebody designed without talking about that person's religions beliefs. Granted, like talking about the design of a guillotine or chemotherapy without talking about their purpose, talking about ID could be a little tough without brining in some talk of purpose, I think we cankeep it scientific.

Since I actually design systems, I can and have talked of this, and both of you "intelligent designers" actually ignored the post that does approach I.D. scientifically by first defining what intelligent decision making is and how it performed evolution.

So I'm sorry, but you can talk pseudoscienticially and that's it, talk about "irreducible complexity" and other important looking words than someone conjured up in order to win some creationist debate rather than find out some real truth of the world. This entire thread is about pseudoscience and all scientific arguments are in fact ignored.
 

So, can we step away from what's right and wrong with darwinian evolution for a bit and see if we can come up with a theory that either works through evolution with intelligent guidance or some other mechanism. Could we make an assumption for now that if there is an IDER he thinks logically similar to us?

Creationism is all about projecting the human mindset onto an omnipotent, invisible substanceless entity that controls everything. Once you set that up, your theory loses all explanatory power, all predictive power, becomes unfalsifiable and is rendered as useless as a story on unicorns and dragons.
So, you can never form a credible theory that supposed a human like omnipowerful entity. Although I.D. is conceivable by defining the genomic processes as adaptively intelligent - this however does not produce an omnipowerful entity to pray to, but produces a weakly intelligent genomic entity that requires lifetimes of stress and suffering in order to produce a next step/change in the genomic configuration.

Also, both of you talk as if we're all here for your lecture. You keep using plural, 'we can do this, we can do that', you keep using indoctrinating forms of sentences, you both seem to think other people on the subject are ignorant token puppets that you will lead towards some conclusion as if they are kids in the first grade. It's annoying and discrediting.

Edited by addx, 03 March 2015 - 08:06 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

No use in talking to you, you like a broken record.

I am posting towards the topic.

But since you're spamming my mailbox with your ignorance I have to unsubscribe..

Typical post that says nothing.

 

No, I actually wrote a post that supports I.D.

http://www.longecity...-32#entry716149

But since it simultaneously does not support creationism, you didn't comment it, which proves this topic to be about creationism and not about I.D..

Yet you find time to comment empty posts, because you like to use them to make false points.

You don't address arguments at all in this thread, you've been told this by 10 separate people at 10 separate times. So, the only thing typical here is your ignorance.

 

I don't have a problem with creationism because It would take a true miracle for something to come from nothing, especially something designed and intelligent, but this topic is about ID with no reference to creationism.

 

As for the details of the current discussion, it is not about creation.  I could comment but I will wait.

Edited by shadowhawk, 03 March 2015 - 09:26 PM.

[shadowhawk]

addx: "Also, both of you talk as if we're all here for your lecture. You keep using plural, 'we can do this, we can do that', you keep using indoctrinating forms of sentences, you both seem to think other people on the subject are ignorant token puppets that you will lead towards some conclusion as if they are kids in the first grade. It's annoying and discrediting." 

 

All you do is call people names.  I have not treated you this way.  Nonsense.

[brianjakub]

I agree that evolution to multi cellular yeast is possible but, evolution from single celled asexually reproducling animals to multicellular heterosexually reproducing animals, requires a complex male reproductive system and a complex female reproductive system to evolve simultaneously, and then those two animals need to be programmed, or learn to have sexual intercourse.

Yes it does require them to evolve simultaneously but not instantaneously. Your expectation is therefore invalid and misleading in this argument.Read my post http://www.longecity...-32#entry716149 to see that there genomic evolution is "increasingly aided" (as in Computer Aided Design) by existing evolved structures and so evolution is smarter than expected from stressing the randomness of it. 

I think that is statistically harder to do by chance than to evolve an eyeball. Anyway, mathematically it seems impossible, and evidence of transitions in the fossil record is non existant for one animal, let alone all the different types of heterosexual reproduction( spawning, egg laying, nursing, womb, etc...), but evolutionary scientists still accept Darwinian evolution as the only viable scientific possibility for a theory.

This is simply self-blinding.The biggest evolutionary leap is the evolution of genetic sexual reproduction itself and of the eukaryote cell. Compared to that, evolution of the reproductive organs is straightforward and obvious.The first sexually reproducing single celled life required (chemical) signalling and genetic/molecular scaffolds to perform sexual reproduction. It requires recognizing your own status for fertilization, recognizing your partner as compatible and also ready for sexual reproduction, and communication coordinating the reproduction process. This is the basic paradigm that evolved through multicellularity. So "sexual attraction" has been there since inception, it did not evolve suddenly in humans or mammals. All the basic behavior is there since inception. The communication and state/species/compatibility detection is a scaffold for sexual selection. "Newer" animals can refuse copulation if deemed unworthy or have to compete for copulation - this is evolved control of the sexual reproduction process towards a greater end result -> better selection means better variety is retained in the pool.Now saying that there are no transitions in the fossil record is simply so misleading that it's hard to stay polite. You don't even need the fossil record, you have all the animals showing the transitions alive and kicking today.From the simplest multicellular reproductions of animals like the hydra to the reproductive organs of humans. You can literally see animals existing without any part of the current mammalian reproductive tract. You can see animals (and plants) that have an option to sexually reproduce, and can do it asexually. You have evolutionary older animals being hermaphrodite, you have animals that change their sex with temperature or other ambient conditions and lifeforms that are able to have sex with themselves. Both plants and animals evolved food supply for their "seed" in the form of the egg or a fruit. You also have animals that hold eggs within themselves till they hatch, you have all variants of egg laying and nurturing etc.Why would the evolution of limbs be any more "straightforward" than the evolution of a penis? It took like a billion years for the mammalian reproductive tract to evolve from the more simpler variants.Sexual reproduction is a way of producing, selecting and retaining good genetic variety in the genetic pool. Some lifeforms are literally able to do this without a partner. 

For some reason there seems to be a biult in bias here. Can we try to look past this possible bias, and ask how a designer might have done it without bringing in religion? I think yes. I think I can talk scientifically about anything somebody designed without talking about that person's religions beliefs. Granted, like talking about the design of a guillotine or chemotherapy without talking about their purpose, talking about ID could be a little tough without brining in some talk of purpose, I think we cankeep it scientific.

Since I actually design systems, I can and have talked of this, and both of you "intelligent designers" actually ignored the post that does approach I.D. scientifically by first defining what intelligent decision making is and how it performed evolution.So I'm sorry, but you can talk pseudoscienticially and that's it, talk about "irreducible complexity" and other important looking words than someone conjured up in order to win some creationist debate rather than find out some real truth of the world. This entire thread is about pseudoscience and all scientific arguments are in fact ignored. 

So, can we step away from what's right and wrong with darwinian evolution for a bit and see if we can come up with a theory that either works through evolution with intelligent guidance or some other mechanism. Could we make an assumption for now that if there is an IDER he thinks logically similar to us?

Creationism is all about projecting the human mindset onto an omnipotent, invisible substanceless entity that controls everything. Once you set that up, your theory loses all explanatory power, all predictive power, becomes unfalsifiable and is rendered as useless as a story on unicorns and dragons.So, you can never form a credible theory that supposed a human like omnipowerful entity. Although I.D. is conceivable by defining the genomic processes as adaptively intelligent - this however does not produce an omnipowerful entity to pray to, but produces a weakly intelligent genomic entity that requires lifetimes of stress and suffering in order to produce a next step/change in the genomic configuration.Also, both of you talk as if we're all here for your lecture. You keep using plural, 'we can do this, we can do that', you keep using indoctrinating forms of sentences, you both seem to think other people on the subject are ignorant token puppets that you will lead towards some conclusion as if they are kids in the first grade. It's annoying and discrediting.

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you addx. I am stating the fact that, a male version of a species and a female version of a species, both had to slowly develope complex reproductive organs over generations of evolution, with neither sex knowing it was evolving while it was reproducing asexually, to finally reach a final evolutionary leap one day in the future when they both stop reproducing asexually and copulate with some opposite sex version of the same species and reproduce heterosexually. How did they know how to use reproductive organs that up until they finally evolved to an operational level were completely useless and unusable. I am just asking for a logical explanation. Leaving omnipotence and prayer aside, I think it requires a high level of intelligence and planning to pull that off even if that intelligence is working inside the bounds of evolution. I am saying we, because I want to offer up an actual theory that we can discuss. I can guarantee you haven't heard this one before. If you are not willing to even discuss it, I guess I can't force you, but maybe someone else would like to.

[shadowhawk]

You have brought up a issue that has caused many to stop in their tracts.  Sexuality is a which came first issue but what makes it such an issue is how it could have evolved and it is an issue for every living thing.  It had to happen over and over.  Thanks for bringing it up.

[addx]

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you addx. I am stating the fact that, a male version of a species and a female version of a species, both had to slowly develope complex reproductive organs over generations of evolution, with neither sex knowing it was evolving while it was reproducing asexually

Sex was "optional" in the beginning - it does not mean it was not performed. It just wasn't very adaptive for species to abandon asexual reproduction completely. Sex was used to increase fitness of the species - which is optional in essence. So sexual reproduction evolved as optional until it evolved enough and became adaptive enough for asexual to be abandoned.

 

, to finally reach a final evolutionary leap one day in the future when they both stop reproducing asexually and copulate with some opposite sex version of the same species and reproduce heterosexually. How did they know how to use reproductive organs that up until they finally evolved to an operational level were completely useless and unusable.

They were operational the entire time.

Sexual intercourse exists in single cell life forms. They have no sexual organs - only a single cell. So, sex existed and was performed throughout the evolution of sexual organs. Animals did not evolve the entire reproductive tract and then suddenly realised they had it as you're trying to present it.

Also, while single cell sexual reproduction existed, behavior that leads towards it was lacking. Cells would "accidentaly" find themselves in the vincinity of other same species cells and, if resources allow it, would sexually reproduce. But since cells pretty much lack the ability to actively seek out other cells to have sex with - it would be "unwise" for them to abandon asexual reproduction - the specied would go extinct.
Only after evolving behavior of finding others to copulate, it became feasible to abandon asexual reproduction. The behavior to find others would evolve slowly because sexual reproduction does improve fitness - and so the better you are able at finding others - the better you are able to improve fitness of the species - until the ability to find others became reliable enough to abandon asexual reproduction.
The behavior of finding others could not evolve properly in single cell life forms, but required multicellularity - limbs to move - senses to detect. Multicellularity however causes cells of the body to differentiate into special tissues which causes them to lose ability to "have sex" - so a "germ" cell line had to be preserved in some part of the body (in humans testes and ovaries). This part of the body is the root of genitalia evolution.

 

I am just asking for a logical explanation. Leaving omnipotence and prayer aside, I think it requires a high level of intelligence and planning to pull that off even if that intelligence is working inside the bounds of evolution. I am saying we, because I want to offer up an actual theory that we can discuss. I can guarantee you haven't heard this one before. If you are not willing to even discuss it, I guess I can't force you, but maybe someone else would like to.

I stated that that early forms of life were optionally sexual, were often hermaphrodite or could change sex with circumstances, some fish change sex as a part of their life course, first they're female, then male. You don't seem intersted at all in this but seem to just want to repeat ad nauseam that you find evolution of sexual organs improbable and you can't offer anything towards that claim except misconceptions about how evolution proceeds.

Edited by addx, 04 March 2015 - 08:12 AM.