1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

The difference between gears with a purpose and a snowflake is purpose.  The snowflake has design but the gear not only has design but a purpose which could only be known by a designer.  We know design when we see it and that is why the gears in a car are designed and an arrowhead is not just a rock.  Design requires information with a purpose.  To bad you are ignorant of prior discussions of this.  Here is a top scientist to explain it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[serp777]

The difference between gears with a purpose and a snowflake is purpose.  The snowflake has design but the gear not only has design but a purpose which could only be known by a designer.  We know design when we see it and that is why the gears in a car are designed and an arrowhead is not just a rock.  Design requires information with a purpose.  To bad you are ignorant of prior discussions of this.  Here is a top scientist to explain it.

 

 

Too bad you are ignorant of all the evidence i've shown demonstrating how evolution produces novel information. The difference between gears and a snowflake is simply that they're different patterns. Pattern does not mean purpose; they are similar in that they both rely on self repeating patterns. You have not proven purpose at all; you have the burden of proof. We don't necessarily know design when we see it. Its why ancient [people thought creatures were all designed for their specific environment, which we now know is false. Again your car and arrowhead analogies just plain suck. A snowflake might seem designed if you hadn't seen one before, but its not.

[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.

 

 

"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."

 

The argument was never that a 1 dollar bill proves the existence of a three dollar bill. The argument was that a billion one dollar bills starts to become quite substantial figure. And the argument also wasn't that bacteria to bacteria is necessarily macro evolution, although it could be. Also, if you deny that micro evolution can lead to macro evolution then you think, presumably, that an intelligent designer had to go through and change every species that ever existed to lead to all of the macro evolution? I mean, come on, you dont seriously believe that. We know evolution occurs through small changes, and those small changes can be observed. There are billions of years for life to change and develop. DNA strands can be added or subtracted. Viruses can add completely new strands of DNA into an organism. Even if you believe in intelligent design on faith, its preposterous to suggest that microevolution as well as viral infections cant lead to macroevolution. Its incredibly fallacious to say that small increments cannot lead to larger increments, which was the point of the money analogy. Here's evidence of viruses affecting hominid evolution by inserting gene expressions that altered genotypes and lead to more natural selection pressures through immunological resistance.

 

 

Viral selection for specific resistance polymorphisms is unlikely, but in conjunction with other parasites, viruses have probably contributed to selection pressure maintaining major histocompatibility complex (MHC) diversity and a strong immune response. They may also have played a role in the loss in our lineage of N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), a cell-surface receptor for many infectious agents. Shared viruses could have affected hominid species diversity both by promoting divergence and by weeding out less resistant host populations, while viruses carried by humans and other animals migrating out of Africa may have contributed to declines in other populations. Endogenous retroviral insertions since the divergence between humans and chimpanzees were capable of directly affecting hominid evolution through changes in gene expression and development.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14666532

 

" 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."

 

So you're asking me to explain the majority of evolution? I mean if you're asking how evolution works I suggest you read the literature instead of trying to get me to try and write a large book explaining the evolutionary history of life. I will cite evidence and reasoning, however, that we do indeed all have a common ancestor.

 

"All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.^[188][256] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.^[257] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups—similar to a family tree.^[258] However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species.^[259][260]"

More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms. For example, all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.^[262] The development of molecular genetics has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.^[263] For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genomes and analysing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.^[264]

 

 

 

Biochemical similarities as well as a genetic family tree, not to mention vestigial traits and geographical distributions show common ancestry almost certainly.

 

"Over the tens of thousands of years that man has been breeding animals, we have yet to see one species evolve into another."

 

We're currently witnessing dogs turning into another species from wolves actually. Many dogs cannot breed with wolves anymore for instance, and they are becoming more genetically dissimilar all the time. Eventually they will be able to be classified. I mean the transitions from wolves to chiwawas definitely classifies as macro evolution of many substantial traits over tens of thousands of years. Unless your argument is that an intelligent designer conspiracy has been making the wolf to dog transition look evolved. The fallacy of your argument is also that you forget that the development of a new species takes hundreds of thousands of years or even millions. The first forms of life took a billion years to evolve. I mean denying evolution is like denying the theory of relativity in the sense that both have an incredible amount of evidence. I'd really recommend going through the evolutionary arguments for the questions regarding single celled organisms to mammals. But I will say that sexes probably emerged as a mechanism to share genes. Bacteria frequently share genes and this could evolve over time to form more complicated ways of sharing genes which eventually resulted in sexes. BActeria are also extremely related to us--our mitochondria is formed from bacteria remnants. Its easy to imagine that gene sharing also was adopted by higher level organisms in order to develop immunity to disease. The point is that there are evolutionary explanations for all the questions you ask, although because they emerged so long ago, empirical evidence besides genetics is difficult to find.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

"explain the stable periods in the fossil record followed by sudden evolutionary jumps"

 

This is another misunderstanding of how evolution works. As i've cited earlier, viruses can insert a significant amount of genetic code which could result in an evolutionary leap if it was a favorable trait. And what is the intelligent design explanation? An intelligent designer occasionally hops in to make some changes? That's not sensible. Just because evolution hasn't yet explained particular cases doesn't mean the theory isn't completely valid. Quantum physics doesn't explain everything about the subatomic world, and yet all the evidence is correct, but obviously we shouldn't assert, analogously, that God is in the gaps. Postulating that an intelligent designer sits in the gaps of evolution is illogical. Intelligent designer of the gaps is just as terrible an argument as God of the gaps. Check out the link below for evidence from Berkley indicating the fossil evolution for evolution. It is substantial and recognized by a variety of universities.

 

http://evolution.ber...rticle/lines_02

 

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

its ridiculous that you demand a theory thats perfectly complete when ID is a "theory" with an infinite number of holes. We should keep looking for evolutionary explanations because it has already explained so much.

 

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

It doesn't have to. I gave you a suggestion for what would prove ID or make it even worth investigating.When you have ID you're still left with answering who designed the designer. Proposing and intelligent designer doesn't help anything. You're making a significantly more complex  for something which has a reasonable theory with a mountain of evidence already. Hence why most of the scientific community is pursuing evolution--the theory with all the evidence, explanations, and predictions. You demand all of these explanations and evidence, so therefore I emand any evidence for ID or any explanations of the intelligent designer or any predictions you can make on the basis of intelligent design.

 

 

The argument was never that a 1 dollar bill proves the existence of a three dollar bill. The argument was that a billion one dollar bills starts to become quite substantial figure. And the argument also wasn't that bacteria to bacteria is necessarily macro evolution, although it could be.

 

I agree Serp, A billion is a lot, but a billion isn't complex.  I agree a million micro evolutions could lead to macro evolution of heterosexual reproduction, the key word you used is could, which means maybe.  The odds are 1/some really big number.  For multiple microevolutions have to happen in sequence, that do not improve the animals fitness to survive (which is necessary for the mechanism of natural selection to select) until all the microevolutions have occurred in sequence, then that number becomes 1/a really big number*1/a really big number * 1/a really big number etc. . .  Empirically the odds approach 1/near infinity or nearly  zero.  Now a billion years might give us a billion tries but 1/ nearly infininity times a billion is still nearly zero.  That doesn't mean it can't happen though, its just emperically unlikely.

 

 

You said Serp'"We're currently witnessing dogs turning into another species from wolves actually. Many dogs cannot breed with wolves anymore for instance, and they are becoming more genetically dissimilar all the time. Eventually they will be able to be classified. I mean the transitions from wolves to chiwawas definitely classifies as macro evolution of many substantial traits over tens of thousands of years. Unless your argument is that an intelligent designer conspiracy has been making the wolf to dog transition look evolved"

 

Now if I lock two mixed breed dogs in a zoo and come back in a couple hundred years and find a pack of chiwawas and pack of wolves, a pack of bulldogs and a pack of dachsunds dogs etc. . . I could asume that the different breeds happened by chance through natural selection.  Knowing what I do about dog breeds though, I would assume somebody with intelligence for a purpose selectively bred them.   The thing is if I remove the humans from the equation and come back in a couple hundred more years I will more than likely have a zoo full of mutts.  So, I think there is a conspiracy, the zookeepers did it.

 

"explain the stable periods in the fossil record followed by sudden evolutionary jumps"

 

You also stated"This is another misunderstanding of how evolution works. As i've cited earlier, viruses can insert a significant amount of genetic code which could result in an evolutionary leap if it was a favorable trait. And what is the intelligent design explanation? An intelligent designer occasionally hops in to make some changes? That's not sensible. Just because evolution hasn't yet explained particular cases doesn't mean the theory isn't completely valid."

 

Why isn't an intelligent designer stepping in sensible?  If you roll double sixes  50 times in a row at a casino , they can think you are real lucky, or throw you out for cheating.  I suspect they will try and figure out how you cheated though. 

 

 

 

I will start a new reply proposing an ID theory.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

"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."

 

The argument was never that a 1 dollar bill proves the existence of a three dollar bill. The argument was that a billion one dollar bills starts to become quite substantial figure. And the argument also wasn't that bacteria to bacteria is necessarily macro evolution, although it could be. Also, if you deny that micro evolution can lead to macro evolution then you think, presumably, that an intelligent designer had to go through and change every species that ever existed to lead to all of the macro evolution? I mean, come on, you dont seriously believe that. We know evolution occurs through small changes, and those small changes can be observed. There are billions of years for life to change and develop. DNA strands can be added or subtracted. Viruses can add completely new strands of DNA into an organism. Even if you believe in intelligent design on faith, its preposterous to suggest that microevolution as well as viral infections cant lead to macroevolution. Its incredibly fallacious to say that small increments cannot lead to larger increments, which was the point of the money analogy. Here's evidence of viruses affecting hominid evolution by inserting gene expressions that altered genotypes and lead to more natural selection pressures through immunological resistance.

 

 

Viral selection for specific resistance polymorphisms is unlikely, but in conjunction with other parasites, viruses have probably contributed to selection pressure maintaining major histocompatibility complex (MHC) diversity and a strong immune response. They may also have played a role in the loss in our lineage of N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), a cell-surface receptor for many infectious agents. Shared viruses could have affected hominid species diversity both by promoting divergence and by weeding out less resistant host populations, while viruses carried by humans and other animals migrating out of Africa may have contributed to declines in other populations. Endogenous retroviral insertions since the divergence between humans and chimpanzees were capable of directly affecting hominid evolution through changes in gene expression and development.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14666532

 

" 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."

 

So you're asking me to explain the majority of evolution? I mean if you're asking how evolution works I suggest you read the literature instead of trying to get me to try and write a large book explaining the evolutionary history of life. I will cite evidence and reasoning, however, that we do indeed all have a common ancestor.

 

"All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.^[188][256] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.^[257] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups—similar to a family tree.^[258] However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species.^[259][260]"

More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms. For example, all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.^[262] The development of molecular genetics has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.^[263] For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genomes and analysing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.^[264]

 

 

 

Biochemical similarities as well as a genetic family tree, not to mention vestigial traits and geographical distributions show common ancestry almost certainly.

 

"Over the tens of thousands of years that man has been breeding animals, we have yet to see one species evolve into another."

 

We're currently witnessing dogs turning into another species from wolves actually. Many dogs cannot breed with wolves anymore for instance, and they are becoming more genetically dissimilar all the time. Eventually they will be able to be classified. I mean the transitions from wolves to chiwawas definitely classifies as macro evolution of many substantial traits over tens of thousands of years. Unless your argument is that an intelligent designer conspiracy has been making the wolf to dog transition look evolved. The fallacy of your argument is also that you forget that the development of a new species takes hundreds of thousands of years or even millions. The first forms of life took a billion years to evolve. I mean denying evolution is like denying the theory of relativity in the sense that both have an incredible amount of evidence. I'd really recommend going through the evolutionary arguments for the questions regarding single celled organisms to mammals. But I will say that sexes probably emerged as a mechanism to share genes. Bacteria frequently share genes and this could evolve over time to form more complicated ways of sharing genes which eventually resulted in sexes. BActeria are also extremely related to us--our mitochondria is formed from bacteria remnants. Its easy to imagine that gene sharing also was adopted by higher level organisms in order to develop immunity to disease. The point is that there are evolutionary explanations for all the questions you ask, although because they emerged so long ago, empirical evidence besides genetics is difficult to find.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

"explain the stable periods in the fossil record followed by sudden evolutionary jumps"

 

This is another misunderstanding of how evolution works. As i've cited earlier, viruses can insert a significant amount of genetic code which could result in an evolutionary leap if it was a favorable trait. And what is the intelligent design explanation? An intelligent designer occasionally hops in to make some changes? That's not sensible. Just because evolution hasn't yet explained particular cases doesn't mean the theory isn't completely valid. Quantum physics doesn't explain everything about the subatomic world, and yet all the evidence is correct, but obviously we shouldn't assert, analogously, that God is in the gaps. Postulating that an intelligent designer sits in the gaps of evolution is illogical. Intelligent designer of the gaps is just as terrible an argument as God of the gaps. Check out the link below for evidence from Berkley indicating the fossil evolution for evolution. It is substantial and recognized by a variety of universities.

 

http://evolution.ber...rticle/lines_02

 

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

its ridiculous that you demand a theory thats perfectly complete when ID is a "theory" with an infinite number of holes. We should keep looking for evolutionary explanations because it has already explained so much.

 

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

It doesn't have to. I gave you a suggestion for what would prove ID or make it even worth investigating.When you have ID you're still left with answering who designed the designer. Proposing and intelligent designer doesn't help anything. You're making a significantly more complex  for something which has a reasonable theory with a mountain of evidence already. Hence why most of the scientific community is pursuing evolution--the theory with all the evidence, explanations, and predictions. You demand all of these explanations and evidence, so therefore I emand any evidence for ID or any explanations of the intelligent designer or any predictions you can make on the basis of intelligent design.

 

 

The argument was never that a 1 dollar bill proves the existence of a three dollar bill. The argument was that a billion one dollar bills starts to become quite substantial figure. And the argument also wasn't that bacteria to bacteria is necessarily macro evolution, although it could be.

 

I agree Serp, A billion is a lot, but a billion isn't complex.  I agree a million micro evolutions could lead to macro evolution of heterosexual reproduction, the key word you used is could, which means maybe.  The odds are 1/some really big number.  For multiple microevolutions have to happen in sequence, that do not improve the animals fitness to survive (which is necessary for the mechanism of natural selection to select) until all the microevolutions have occurred in sequence, then that number becomes 1/a really big number*1/a really big number * 1/a really big number etc. . .  Empirically the odds approach 1/near infinity or nearly  zero.  Now a billion years might give us a billion tries but 1/ nearly infininity times a billion is still nearly zero.  That doesn't mean it can't happen though, its just emperically unlikely.

 

 

You said Serp'"We're currently witnessing dogs turning into another species from wolves actually. Many dogs cannot breed with wolves anymore for instance, and they are becoming more genetically dissimilar all the time. Eventually they will be able to be classified. I mean the transitions from wolves to chiwawas definitely classifies as macro evolution of many substantial traits over tens of thousands of years. Unless your argument is that an intelligent designer conspiracy has been making the wolf to dog transition look evolved"

 

Now if I lock two mixed breed dogs in a zoo and come back in a couple hundred years and find a pack of chiwawas and pack of wolves, a pack of bulldogs and a pack of dachsunds dogs etc. . . I could asume that the different breeds happened by chance through natural selection.  Knowing what I do about dog breeds though, I would assume somebody with intelligence for a purpose selectively bred them.   The thing is if I remove the humans from the equation and come back in a couple hundred more years I will more than likely have a zoo full of mutts.  So, I think there is a conspiracy, the zookeepers did it.

 

"explain the stable periods in the fossil record followed by sudden evolutionary jumps"

 

You also stated"This is another misunderstanding of how evolution works. As i've cited earlier, viruses can insert a significant amount of genetic code which could result in an evolutionary leap if it was a favorable trait. And what is the intelligent design explanation? An intelligent designer occasionally hops in to make some changes? That's not sensible. Just because evolution hasn't yet explained particular cases doesn't mean the theory isn't completely valid."

 

Why isn't an intelligent designer stepping in sensible?  If you roll double sixes  50 times in a row at a casino , they can think you are real lucky, or throw you out for cheating.  I suspect they will try and figure out how you cheated though. 

 

 

 

I will start a new reply proposing an ID theory.

 

Actually a billion dollars can represent a part of a complex economy.

 

" I agree a million micro evolutions could lead to macro evolution of heterosexual reproduction, the key word you used is could, which means maybe."

Except that all the evidence shows that evolution is real. Mitochondria was formed from bacteria for instance and you can create a tree of evolutionary descent from genetic analyses. I showed you evidence for this and it is essentially undeniable. And so what do you think? A trillion micro developments is going to create the same organism as before? Obviously not, it will lead to a new species and something which is very different. And don't you think the micro traits which help with survival will lead to more reproduction of that particular trait?

 

I also gave you a very likely hypothesis for how heterosexual reproduction emerged. Bacteria often share genes with each other, because that helps to promote survival. Its likely that this trait was incorporated by eukaryotes, which then transferred to more highly evolved organisms. As evolution continued, they way organisms transferred genes evolved along with them to eventually lead to modern reproduction. And it perfectly explains why there is so much variation in the natural world for reproduction. Different environments shaped reproduction differently. Your intelligent design theory has to explain all the variety of reproduction methods.

 

" The odds are 1/some really big number."

 

No, can you prove the odds? Then take into account 3.5 billion years and an entire planet; factor that into the "odds".  its very very likely that ways of improved genetic transfer would have evolved because it assists with disease immunity and promotes more evolution.

 

"

 

Now if I lock two mixed breed dogs in a zoo and come back in a couple hundred years and find a pack of chiwawas and pack of wolves, a pack of bulldogs and a pack of dachsunds dogs etc. . . I could asume that the different breeds happened by chance through natural selection.  Knowing what I do about dog breeds though, I would assume somebody with intelligence for a purpose selectively bred them.   The thing is if I remove the humans from the equation and come back in a couple hundred more years I will more than likely have a zoo full of mutts.  So, I think there is a conspiracy, the zookeepers did it."

 

You missed the point of the argument. Humans are taking over the role of natural selection and selecting traits (then supporting those and breeding them so they have the best chance at survival). Natural selection works on the same principle as breeding except that breeding selects for traits that humans find desirable. If breeding works then so does selection based on fitness. That was the primary point. Breeding implies that evolution is real. Because humans are not good at breeding healthy dogs, you get many dogs which are sickly such as the bull dog.

 

Also, you seem to have ignored all of my evidence regarding evolution and instead try to make the arguments from analogy. Evolutions is basically a fact with a mountain of  evidence. Did you not find my evidence of common ancestry convincing? Is it just a conspiracy from your intelligent designer in order to trick us into believing he doesn't exist? I mean cmon. Surely no one with your intelligence believes that.

 

"Why isn't an intelligent designer stepping in sensible?  If you roll double sixes  50 times in a row at a casino , they can think you are real lucky, or throw you out for cheating.  I suspect they will try and figure out how you cheated though."

So why are you assuming its simply like rolling double sixes 50 times in a row? Its more like having a trillion people rolling die for a billion years, and then one person happens to roll double sixes 50 times in a row, and because they did they're the most successful. With a trillion people rolling die for a billion years the odds become likely that double sixes will be rolled 50 times in a row at a casino. 

[brianjakub]

Serp777 and anyone else,

As I propose this ID theory, I would like to make some assumptions about the characteristics of the intelligent designer.  Since, the only comparative example of a being, that I have physical evidence to substantiate that can imagine a new complex and intelligent idea, and then translate that idea into the physical world is human beings, I am going to assume that is the pattern all intelligent designers must follow. .

 

So, let's look at the characteristics of intelligent design as it is manifested by humans.  First humans have the ability to recognize a need understand why they have the need, and then imagine and develop complex ideas to meet these needs, and store these ideas in the memory of their brains.  This why humans a purpose.  Animals on the other hand do feel needs, but don't ask why they have that need. A bird can build a complex nest, but doesn't know why.  It just does.  It appears by the evidence, that an animal is hardwired and has been hardwired as far back as we can trace the ancestry of a certain species.  So, that bird will build a fairly similar nest every time without improving on the design.  Humans on the other hand constantly can imagine a need to improve and a way to do it.

 

The second characteristic of intelligent design is the ability to manifest something as abstract as a new idea and turn into something physical like a memory stored in the brain.  This changing an abstract idea into something physical is required for the sharing and storing of information.  Since the new idea is not hardwired into the brain it must originate in a way, that it manipulates the matter in  the brain, rather than originating in the brain.  The idea causes the matter to store the idea as information, and not the other way around. Now the person could use information previously stored in the mind to develop the idea, but the new idea is not a product of matter.  I know this is counter intuitive to most scientific theories suggesting that ideas manifest from matter, but I think the evidence shows that matter only stores ideas and transmits them (like to muscle movement that can build a house, or be transmitted to other peoples brains in codes like the words on this page). But matter doesn't create new ideas.

 

If the designer of the universe has these characteristics, and it imagined a need to create the universe, the first thing it would need to do is create a physical universe of matter to transmit, receive, and store its ideas.  Since the only way we know of, to store information in the physical universe, is in the spin of quarks and antiquarks that make up matter, the first thing an intelligent designer would need to do is create the boundaries that create the space of every quark and antiquark, and then give them spin.  Next he would have to create another layer of boundaries as he combined these quarks and anti quarks into atoms.  Now, since quarks and antiquarks have boundaries, and atoms have boundaries, and we know the strong force is holding these quarks and antiquarks in the boundaries defined by atoms, this designer must come up with a physical way to either pull or push these quarks together so they stay in the boundary of the atom.

 

Scientists can measure the strong force, and create mathematical equations to explain it, but they don't know what is pulling or pushing on the quarks and antiquarks of an atom to keep them in their boundaries.  They speculate there is something in empty space they call dark matter and dark energy, but what physically holds an atom together and keeps the quarks from flying off into space nobody has imagined a picture of yet that I know of.

 

I would like to propose what space and matter might look like if an intelligent designer that logically like us, and provide a picture you can see and imagine working.  I think you have to be able to imagine it and physically construct it in your mind as a picture, for it to logically exist.

 

        

[serp777]

Serp777 and anyone else,

As I propose this ID theory, I would like to make some assumptions about the characteristics of the intelligent designer.  Since, the only comparative example of a being, that I have physical evidence to substantiate that can imagine a new complex and intelligent idea, and then translate that idea into the physical world is human beings, I am going to assume that is the pattern all intelligent designers must follow. .

 

So, let's look at the characteristics of intelligent design as it is manifested by humans.  First humans have the ability to recognize a need understand why they have the need, and then imagine and develop complex ideas to meet these needs, and store these ideas in the memory of their brains.  This why humans a purpose.  Animals on the other hand do feel needs, but don't ask why they have that need. A bird can build a complex nest, but doesn't know why.  It just does.  It appears by the evidence, that an animal is hardwired and has been hardwired as far back as we can trace the ancestry of a certain species.  So, that bird will build a fairly similar nest every time without improving on the design.  Humans on the other hand constantly can imagine a need to improve and a way to do it.

 

The second characteristic of intelligent design is the ability to manifest something as abstract as a new idea and turn into something physical like a memory stored in the brain.  This changing an abstract idea into something physical is required for the sharing and storing of information.  Since the new idea is not hardwired into the brain it must originate in a way, that it manipulates the matter in  the brain, rather than originating in the brain.  The idea causes the matter to store the idea as information, and not the other way around. Now the person could use information previously stored in the mind to develop the idea, but the new idea is not a product of matter.  I know this is counter intuitive to most scientific theories suggesting that ideas manifest from matter, but I think the evidence shows that matter only stores ideas and transmits them (like to muscle movement that can build a house, or be transmitted to other peoples brains in codes like the words on this page). But matter doesn't create new ideas.

 

If the designer of the universe has these characteristics, and it imagined a need to create the universe, the first thing it would need to do is create a physical universe of matter to transmit, receive, and store its ideas.  Since the only way we know of, to store information in the physical universe, is in the spin of quarks and antiquarks that make up matter, the first thing an intelligent designer would need to do is create the boundaries that create the space of every quark and antiquark, and then give them spin.  Next he would have to create another layer of boundaries as he combined these quarks and anti quarks into atoms.  Now, since quarks and antiquarks have boundaries, and atoms have boundaries, and we know the strong force is holding these quarks and antiquarks in the boundaries defined by atoms, this designer must come up with a physical way to either pull or push these quarks together so they stay in the boundary of the atom.

 

Scientists can measure the strong force, and create mathematical equations to explain it, but they don't know what is pulling or pushing on the quarks and antiquarks of an atom to keep them in their boundaries.  They speculate there is something in empty space they call dark matter and dark energy, but what physically holds an atom together and keeps the quarks from flying off into space nobody has imagined a picture of yet that I know of.

 

I would like to propose what space and matter might look like if an intelligent designer that logically like us, and provide a picture you can see and imagine working.  I think you have to be able to imagine it and physically construct it in your mind as a picture, for it to logically exist.

 

"I would like to make some assumptions about the characteristics of the intelligent designer"

Well that's your first problem right there.
 

" Since, the only comparative example of a being, that I have physical evidence to substantiate that can imagine a new complex and intelligent idea, and then translate that idea into the physical world is human beings, I am going to assume that is the pattern all intelligent designers must follow. ."

This is a bad assumption. The universe or an intelligent designer wouldn't have to operate on your conceptions of what is possible. For example, 1000 years ago people couldn't conceive of semi conductors and yet the universe doesn't have to operate on comparative examples of what they know.

 

"Animals on the other hand do feel needs, but don't ask why they have that need. A bird can build a complex nest, but doesn't know why.  It just does."

Well humans are animals, so it would be incorrect to assume the extent of cognitive abilities that animals have. A bird may know that it has to build a nest in order to protect and raise its young. We don't know what they do or dont think because we can't communicate with animals. Elephants and dolpins are both very intelligent and probably have many of the same existential considerations that humans do.

 

"This why humans a purpose."

It doesnt mean humans have purpose. Purpose is relative and subject to interpretation.

 

"It appears by the evidence, that an animal is hardwired and has been hardwired as far back as we can trace the ancestry of a certain species."

Many humans aspects are hard wired as well. Furthermore, now you accept evolution and common ancestry? Seems to contradict all of your other statements asking for various explanations of evolution. If you believe in evolution then evolution becomes the most logical theory to explain all aspects of biology. No need to throw in something vastly more complicated to explain something relatively simple/.

 

"So, that bird will build a fairly similar nest every time without improving on the design.  Humans on the other hand constantly can imagine a need to improve and a way to do it."

So animals dont improve or learn? Where is the evidence?

 

"I know this is counter intuitive to most scientific theories suggesting that ideas manifest from matter, but I think the evidence shows that matter only stores ideas and transmits them (like to muscle movement that can build a house, or be transmitted to other peoples brains in codes like the words on this page). But matter doesn't create new ideas."

 

Our minds are made out of matter and create new ideas. Animals minds are also made out of matter and create new ideas. Advanced computer programs find novel information out of existing information--there are even computer programs that can find mathematical proofs.

 

"If the designer of the universe has these characteristics, and it imagined a need to create the universe, the first thing it would need to do is create a physical universe of matter to transmit, receive, and store its ideas.  Since the only way we know of, to store information in the physical universe, is in the spin of quarks and antiquarks that make up matter, the first thing an intelligent designer would need to do is create the boundaries that create the space of every quark and antiquark, and then give them spin.  Next he would have to create another layer of boundaries as he combined these quarks and anti quarks into atoms.  Now, since quarks and antiquarks have boundaries, and atoms have boundaries, and we know the strong force is holding these quarks and antiquarks in the boundaries defined by atoms, this designer must come up with a physical way to either pull or push these quarks together so they stay in the boundary of the atom."

 

Ok well this is a God of the gaps argument essentially. You have some infinite, perfect designer in the holes of science. Its not even a good argument, let alone a theory. It also doesn't assist the argument whatsoever that an intelligent designer created life. Maybe God created the universe to spontaneously generate life. Its not based on any reasoning which means its about as likely as the tooth fairy.

 

"

 

Scientists can measure the strong force, and create mathematical equations to explain it, but they don't know what is pulling or pushing on the quarks and antiquarks of an atom to keep them in their boundaries.  They speculate there is something in empty space they call dark matter and dark energy, but what physically holds an atom together and keeps the quarks from flying off into space nobody has imagined a picture of yet that I know of."

 

Actually scientists know what causes the strong force. Its called the gluon which has some elasticity like a rubber band. It keeps quarks stuck together without flying apart in order to form protons. Again an intelligent designer of the gaps is NOT an explanation or a theory. It makes no predictions and it has no evidence. its unfalsifiable currently. The strong force works to hold atoms together by transmitting a force carrier known as the pion which is analagous to the electromagnetic force. Its simply much stronger on a small scale but weaker on a large scale.

[platypus]

The lack of evidence otherwise suggests that ID has really achieved nothing in the last 150 years. No triumphs, no theories of great explanatory power (like evolution), no predictions and no applications? 

[shadowhawk]

 

The difference between gears with a purpose and a snowflake is purpose.  The snowflake has design but the gear not only has design but a purpose which could only be known by a designer.  We know design when we see it and that is why the gears in a car are designed and an arrowhead is not just a rock.  Design requires information with a purpose.  To bad you are ignorant of prior discussions of this.  Here is a top scientist to explain it.

 

 

Too bad you are ignorant of all the evidence i've shown demonstrating how evolution produces novel information. The difference between gears and a snowflake is simply that they're different patterns. Pattern does not mean purpose; they are similar in that they both rely on self repeating patterns. You have not proven purpose at all; you have the burden of proof. We don't necessarily know design when we see it. Its why ancient [people thought creatures were all designed for their specific environment, which we now know is false. Again your car and arrowhead analogies just plain suck. A snowflake might seem designed if you hadn't seen one before, but its not.

 

Of course the picture of the biological gear raises several problems which you ignore.  How does selection arrive at such coordination? What good is one gear without the corresponding other gear?  This is not a problem for the snowflake which follows non physical natiral law which likewise is a problem.  What is the nature of abstract objects such as math and law which is at play in the formation of thje snowflake.  Non physical, where did they come from?  So, the snowflake and gear both show design but the gear has the added dimension of mechanical purpose at operation in its creation.  Two gears at the same time are necessary for its purpose to be manifest.  The purpose cannot be found in one gear alone.  How did selection select for it?

This is but one little gear but the problem it raises is compounded in other things as distantly removed as astronomy.  SETI a scientific field of study seeks extra terrestrial intelligence elsewhere in the cosmos.  Surely if ID is here it must be elsewhere in the cosmos.  Since only an idiot would deny it is here, given a multiverse it must exist. If SETI is science than ID deserves scientific study.  Do you think there is anything beside gears to support ID? 

[shadowhawk]

The lack of evidence otherwise suggests that ID has really achieved nothing in the last 150 years. No triumphs, no theories of great explanatory power (like evolution), no predictions and no applications? 

 

There is always so much evidence in these posts full of nothing but logical fallacies.  Lots of noise. 
 

[shadowhawk]

Would you like to get current viewpoints on this subject.  Choose "follow" from this page,  http://www.podomatic...lligentdesign  

[brianjakub]

 

Serp777 and anyone else,

As I propose this ID theory, I would like to make some assumptions about the characteristics of the intelligent designer.  Since, the only comparative example of a being, that I have physical evidence to substantiate that can imagine a new complex and intelligent idea, and then translate that idea into the physical world is human beings, I am going to assume that is the pattern all intelligent designers must follow. .

 

So, let's look at the characteristics of intelligent design as it is manifested by humans.  First humans have the ability to recognize a need understand why they have the need, and then imagine and develop complex ideas to meet these needs, and store these ideas in the memory of their brains.  This why humans a purpose.  Animals on the other hand do feel needs, but don't ask why they have that need. A bird can build a complex nest, but doesn't know why.  It just does.  It appears by the evidence, that an animal is hardwired and has been hardwired as far back as we can trace the ancestry of a certain species.  So, that bird will build a fairly similar nest every time without improving on the design.  Humans on the other hand constantly can imagine a need to improve and a way to do it.

 

The second characteristic of intelligent design is the ability to manifest something as abstract as a new idea and turn into something physical like a memory stored in the brain.  This changing an abstract idea into something physical is required for the sharing and storing of information.  Since the new idea is not hardwired into the brain it must originate in a way, that it manipulates the matter in  the brain, rather than originating in the brain.  The idea causes the matter to store the idea as information, and not the other way around. Now the person could use information previously stored in the mind to develop the idea, but the new idea is not a product of matter.  I know this is counter intuitive to most scientific theories suggesting that ideas manifest from matter, but I think the evidence shows that matter only stores ideas and transmits them (like to muscle movement that can build a house, or be transmitted to other peoples brains in codes like the words on this page). But matter doesn't create new ideas.

 

If the designer of the universe has these characteristics, and it imagined a need to create the universe, the first thing it would need to do is create a physical universe of matter to transmit, receive, and store its ideas.  Since the only way we know of, to store information in the physical universe, is in the spin of quarks and antiquarks that make up matter, the first thing an intelligent designer would need to do is create the boundaries that create the space of every quark and antiquark, and then give them spin.  Next he would have to create another layer of boundaries as he combined these quarks and anti quarks into atoms.  Now, since quarks and antiquarks have boundaries, and atoms have boundaries, and we know the strong force is holding these quarks and antiquarks in the boundaries defined by atoms, this designer must come up with a physical way to either pull or push these quarks together so they stay in the boundary of the atom.

 

Scientists can measure the strong force, and create mathematical equations to explain it, but they don't know what is pulling or pushing on the quarks and antiquarks of an atom to keep them in their boundaries.  They speculate there is something in empty space they call dark matter and dark energy, but what physically holds an atom together and keeps the quarks from flying off into space nobody has imagined a picture of yet that I know of.

 

I would like to propose what space and matter might look like if an intelligent designer that logically like us, and provide a picture you can see and imagine working.  I think you have to be able to imagine it and physically construct it in your mind as a picture, for it to logically exist.

 

"I would like to make some assumptions about the characteristics of the intelligent designer"

Well that's your first problem right there.
 

" Since, the only comparative example of a being, that I have physical evidence to substantiate that can imagine a new complex and intelligent idea, and then translate that idea into the physical world is human beings, I am going to assume that is the pattern all intelligent designers must follow. ."

This is a bad assumption. The universe or an intelligent designer wouldn't have to operate on your conceptions of what is possible. For example, 1000 years ago people couldn't conceive of semi conductors and yet the universe doesn't have to operate on comparative examples of what they know.

 

"Animals on the other hand do feel needs, but don't ask why they have that need. A bird can build a complex nest, but doesn't know why.  It just does."

Well humans are animals, so it would be incorrect to assume the extent of cognitive abilities that animals have. A bird may know that it has to build a nest in order to protect and raise its young. We don't know what they do or dont think because we can't communicate with animals. Elephants and dolpins are both very intelligent and probably have many of the same existential considerations that humans do.

 

"This why humans a purpose."

It doesnt mean humans have purpose. Purpose is relative and subject to interpretation.

 

"It appears by the evidence, that an animal is hardwired and has been hardwired as far back as we can trace the ancestry of a certain species."

Many humans aspects are hard wired as well. Furthermore, now you accept evolution and common ancestry? Seems to contradict all of your other statements asking for various explanations of evolution. If you believe in evolution then evolution becomes the most logical theory to explain all aspects of biology. No need to throw in something vastly more complicated to explain something relatively simple/.

 

"So, that bird will build a fairly similar nest every time without improving on the design.  Humans on the other hand constantly can imagine a need to improve and a way to do it."

So animals dont improve or learn? Where is the evidence?

 

"I know this is counter intuitive to most scientific theories suggesting that ideas manifest from matter, but I think the evidence shows that matter only stores ideas and transmits them (like to muscle movement that can build a house, or be transmitted to other peoples brains in codes like the words on this page). But matter doesn't create new ideas."

 

Our minds are made out of matter and create new ideas. Animals minds are also made out of matter and create new ideas. Advanced computer programs find novel information out of existing information--there are even computer programs that can find mathematical proofs.

 

"If the designer of the universe has these characteristics, and it imagined a need to create the universe, the first thing it would need to do is create a physical universe of matter to transmit, receive, and store its ideas.  Since the only way we know of, to store information in the physical universe, is in the spin of quarks and antiquarks that make up matter, the first thing an intelligent designer would need to do is create the boundaries that create the space of every quark and antiquark, and then give them spin.  Next he would have to create another layer of boundaries as he combined these quarks and anti quarks into atoms.  Now, since quarks and antiquarks have boundaries, and atoms have boundaries, and we know the strong force is holding these quarks and antiquarks in the boundaries defined by atoms, this designer must come up with a physical way to either pull or push these quarks together so they stay in the boundary of the atom."

 

Ok well this is a God of the gaps argument essentially. You have some infinite, perfect designer in the holes of science. Its not even a good argument, let alone a theory. It also doesn't assist the argument whatsoever that an intelligent designer created life. Maybe God created the universe to spontaneously generate life. Its not based on any reasoning which means its about as likely as the tooth fairy.

 

"

 

Scientists can measure the strong force, and create mathematical equations to explain it, but they don't know what is pulling or pushing on the quarks and antiquarks of an atom to keep them in their boundaries.  They speculate there is something in empty space they call dark matter and dark energy, but what physically holds an atom together and keeps the quarks from flying off into space nobody has imagined a picture of yet that I know of."

 

Actually scientists know what causes the strong force. Its called the gluon which has some elasticity like a rubber band. It keeps quarks stuck together without flying apart in order to form protons. Again an intelligent designer of the gaps is NOT an explanation or a theory. It makes no predictions and it has no evidence. its unfalsifiable currently. The strong force works to hold atoms together by transmitting a force carrier known as the pion which is analagous to the electromagnetic force. Its simply much stronger on a small scale but weaker on a large scale.

 

What does a gluon look like?   How big is it?  Just because it is to small to be observe doesn't mean we can't imagine its shape or structure.  Is it pushing in from the outside of a proton, or pulling in from the inside of a proton?  I thought the only things elastic are made up of matter? So a gluon is an elastic substance, but it isn't matter.  What is the math explaining?  Why is the strong force weak force ratio what it is?  I am going to provide a theory that answers those questions by suggesting how space and the interior of an atom are constructed.  I am only saying that when I imagined this theory, it was hard for me to figure out how space and matter were constructed in such a way to produce the results we are measuring, and the constants we observe without someone constructing it. A possible arrangement of the quarks of matter and the virtual quarks (Bosons) of space can be hypothetically deduced, and discussed.  How they came to be arranged that way, (and if need be) who arranged them and why can be discussed later.  So if it's ok, I would like to hypothisize how space could be divided and constructed, and how the quarks of matter could be arranged, to give us the constants we measure and provide a picture of what a gluon would look like if we could see it.  

 

But, before I start can you provide plausible hypothetical answers to the questions I presented at the beginning of this response Serp777, or platypus .    

[platypus]

Please list a couple of breakthroughs in ID in the last 150 years by using bullets. So far I've seen nothing, which makes ID to look like a (bad) joke. 

 

...if you cannot name any findings or accepted results of ID, we must decide that ID is "out" and this thread can be closed. Please post the findings you're aware of so we can see. 

Edited by platypus, 10 March 2015 - 07:15 AM.

[brianjakub]

 

 

Please list a couple of breakthroughs in ID in the last 150 years by using bullets. So far I've seen nothing, which makes ID to look like a (bad) joke. 

 

...if you cannot name any findings or accepted results of ID, we must decide that ID is "out" and this thread can be closed. Please post the findings you're aware of so we can see. 

 

  Neither ID nor Evolutionary theories can make scientific discovories, only intelligent men can make them.  Many scientists (that are more intelligent than any of us) have made their discoveries assuming they were forming their hypothesis on the basis that the universe was established by an intelligent designer or created by a God.   We don't know if they were atheists if they would have reached the same conclusions.  Only each individual scientist (and maybe God) could answer that question.  There is a bullet point list in this link, too long to post . http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science   List of Christian thinkers in science

 

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

Set of pictures for a number of notableScientists self-identified as Christians: Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon andJohannes Kepler.

 

Clerks studying astronomy and geometry.
France, early 15th century.

This list is about the relationship between religion and science, but is specific to Christian history. This is only supplementary to the issue as lists are by themselves not equipped to answer questions on this topic. The list's purpose is to act as a guide: names, annotations, and links are provided for use in further study on this topic.

This list is non-exhaustive and is limited to those scientists whose Christian beliefs or thoughts, in writing or speaking, are relevant to their notability.

Many well-known historical figures who influenced Western science considered themselves Christian such as Copernicus,^[1] Galileo,^[2] Kepler,^[3] Newton^[4]and Boyle.^[5]

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.^[6] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,^[7]72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,^[7] 62% in Medicine,^[7] 54% in Economics^[7] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.^[7]

 So, patypus I've answered your question.  Can you answer the question I asked in my previous post?

 

What does a gluon look like?   How big is it?  Just because it is to small to be observe doesn't mean we can't imagine its shape or structure.  Is it pushing in from the outside of a proton, or pulling in from the inside of a proton?  I thought the only things elastic are made up of matter? So a gluon is an elastic substance, but it isn't matter.  What is the math explaining?  Why is the strong force weak force ratio what it is?

 

While you're at at we could throw in Planck's constant, Boltzman's constant, and the permittivity of free space. Niether evolutionists nor ID believers have explained why these constants are what they are yet.  They've just provided statistcal analysis of data.  If an ID believer does, does that make ID true, or just make him lucky? 

[platypus]

Brianjakub, please list the accomplishments of ID in the last 150 years, if there are any. No ID accomplishments = no ID science.

 

Also, can some post here the list of say three most cited peer-reviewed scientific papers on ID ever published? No ID publications = there is no ID science. 

 

 

[brianjakub]

Brianjakub, please list the accomplishments of ID in the last 150 years, if there are any. No ID accomplishments = no ID science.

 

Also, can some post here the list of say three most cited peer-reviewed scientific papers on ID ever published? No ID publications = there is no ID science. 

 

There are none.  ID is automatically disqualified from peer reviewed scientific journals, because it implies supernatural causes and scientific journals have a requirement that all theories must be explained by natural causes.  I disagree.  I answered your question.  Now will you answer mine, or at least sight some 

 

What does a gluon look like?   How big is it?  Just because it is to small to be observe doesn't mean we can't imagine its shape or structure.  Is it pushing in from the outside of a proton, or pulling in from the inside of a proton?  I thought the only things elastic are made up of matter? So a gluon is an elastic substance, but it isn't matter.  What is the math explaining?  Why is the strong force weak force ratio what it is?

 

While you're at at we could throw in Planck's constant, Boltzman's constant, and the permittivity of free space. Niether evolutionists nor ID believers have explained why these constants are what they are yet.  They've just provided statistcal analysis of data.  If an ID believer does, does that make ID true, or just make him lucky?

 

Let's throw two more in.  Where does gravity originate from, and why is the speed of light a constant in a gravity free vacuum?  Show me some hypothesis that provide a logical and complete answer to these. If nobody can (especially Serp777 and platypus)  I would like to offer one and discuss it.   

[platypus]

Then we must decide that ID science is "out", as it does not exist. How do I contact the moderators and ask this thread to be locked?

 

We can discuss your questions in a new thread that does not pretend that ID is a science. By the way, we are a young species of trouser-wearing hominids, why do you imply that we should/could know everything? 

[brianjakub]

Then we must decide that ID science is "out", as it does not exist. How do I contact the moderators and ask this thread to be locked?

 

We can discuss your questions in a new thread that does not pretend that ID is a science. By the way, we are a young species of trouser-wearing hominids, why do you imply that we should/could know everything? 

I am not implying that we should/could know everything, I am just saying we should try to find the answers to question such as the ones I asked.  That's what scientific inquiry is about.  

 

“There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e - the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!” 
― Richard P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

 

As Feynman said,"He would like to know where the coupling constant (strong force weak force ratio) comes from.  I am saying I have a theory that helps us understand this mystery.  If you don't want to discuss it with me because of my philosophical beliefs that is fine, but this is a forum discussing ID and I would like to provide evidence for a theory supporting it.  Could I at least provide the evidence and we discuss it, before we end the discussion because you don't agree with my philosophical beliefs.  I would appreciate your input.  My theory is unique, it needs to be to answer questions that no other theory has answered up till now. I hope Serp777 will discuss it.   

[platypus]

So what is your "theory" about the coupling constant? Please lets move this discussion elsewhere now that it's clear that ID science does not exist. 

[Antonio2014]

[shadowhawk]

By the way ID as a movement has not existed as a movement for 150 years,  So the question needs re framing.  Second, what do you mean by "accomplishment?"  Is it supposed to have done something such as describe something?  What are you talking about?  Modern ID proponents are trying to ID intelligent design not who the designer is.  I am a Christian but not all IDers are.  Some are atheists.  shall I list some?

 

ID is a scientific theory such as SETI and evolution.  It is not a religious view.

Edited by shadowhawk, 11 March 2015 - 08:10 PM.

[shadowhawk]

DISSENT FROM DARWINISM LIST BY SCIENTISTS.

 

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

 

 

Why Is Darwinian Theory Controversial?

Everyone agrees that Darwinian evolution is a controversial topic. But not everyone agrees on why.

Many advocates of Darwinian evolution promote the stereotype that the theory is controversial only because a small religious segment of society has social, religious, or political objections. These advocates claim that there is no credible scientific disagreement with Darwinian evolution. This, however, is not true. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list shows that there is credible scientific dissent from Darwinian theory.

The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List includes hundreds of PhD scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. The list shows that it is possible to hold legitimate scientific doubts about Darwinian evolution from a strictly scientific standpoint.

Of course there are some people who have religious objections to Darwinian evolution. Conversely, some people make religious (or anti-religious) arguments for accepting Darwinian evolution. Religion isn't the issue here. The issue is whether it's possible to be a scientific skeptic of Darwinian evolution. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List shows that it is.

What Is "Evolution"?

Whenever talking about challenges to "evolution," it's vital to carefully define terms, otherwise confusion can result. There are three common usages of the term "evolution":

• Evolution #1 -- Microevolution: Small-scale changes in a population of organisms.
• 
  
• Evolution #2 -- Universal Common Descent: The idea that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor.
• 
  
• Evolution #3 -- Darwinian Evolution: The view that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation has been the primary mechanism driving the evolution of life.

No one doubts Evolution #1, which is sometimes called "microevolution." Some scientists doubt Evolution #2. But the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list only concerns Evolution #3, also called Darwinian evolution or Darwinism. The scientists who have signed the dissent statement say this:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

I defined Evolution #1 by equating it with "microevolution" -- small-scale changes in a population of organisms. Collectively, Evolution #2 and #3 might be termed macroevolution, which is defined as follows:

Macroevolution: Large-scale changes in populations of organisms, including the evolution of fundamentally new biological features. Typically this term also means that all life forms descended from a single common ancestor through unguided natural processes.

Unfortunately, evolutionists sometimes purposefully confuse these definitions, hoping you won't notice that they have overstated their case. They will take evidence for microevolution (Evolution #1), and then over-extrapolate the evidence and claim it supports macroevolution (Evolution #2 or Evolution #3). Indeed, sometimes evolution advocates will equate microevolution and macroevolution, the idea being that macroevolution is just repeated rounds of microevolution added up. I will address these inaccurate claims.

What Scientific Evidence Challenges Darwinian Evolution?

The signers of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List have many scientific reasons for being skeptical of Darwinian theory. In writing this, I do not intend to speak for any of them in particular, but the following section briefly lists some of the types of scientific data that are often cited by those challenging Darwinian evolution:

• Genetics -- Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity: Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: "New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired."¹ Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that "[m]utations have a very limited 'constructive capacity'" because "[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."²
• Biochemistry -- Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity: Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. As Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Science, observed: "[t]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."³ Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits in a book published by Oxford University Press: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."⁴
• Paleontology -- The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils: The fossil record's overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: "We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus -- full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations."⁵ Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that "[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."⁶ Similarly, a zoology textbook observes: "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group."⁷
• Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany wrote in the journal Theory in Biosciences that "while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin's undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology."⁸ A 2011 paper in Biological Theory stated, "Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope,"⁹ and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that "the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false."¹⁰

  Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as "a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory,"¹¹ which he insists "cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors"¹² in organisms. Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated in a report in Nature that "[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest," and evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd admits: "When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . [b]ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about."¹³ Eugene Koonin writes in Trends in Genetics about the increasingly undeniable reasons to doubt core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as view that "natural selection is the main driving force of evolution," indicating that "the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair" and "all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution." He concludes: "Not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone."¹⁴ Because of such criticisms, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine believes the Darwinian claim that "Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution" is "false."¹⁵

There are many scientific objections to Darwinian evolution, and again, this is not to say that any particular signer of the Dissent from Darwinism list makes any one of these specific arguments. Instead, I have simply indicated some of the common scientific objections to Darwinian evolution. In a subsequent post, I will address the question: "Is Darwinian Evolution 'Just a Theory'?"

References:

[1.] Lynn Margulis, quoted in Darry Madden, "UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory," Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (Feb 3, 2006)
[2.] Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation (Academic Press: New York NY, 1977).
[3.] Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 6, 1998).
[4.] Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, p. 205 (Oxford University Press, 2001).
[5.] Jeffrey Schwartz, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, p. 3 (Wiley, 1999).
[6.] Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, p. 189 (Basic Books, 2001).
[7.] C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, p. 866 (1988, 8th ed.)
[8.] Günter Theißen, "Saltational Evolution: Hopeful Monsters are Here to Stay," Theory in Biosciences, 128: 43-44 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
[9.] D. J. Depew and B. H. Weber, "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis," Biological Theory, 6: 89-102 (December 2011).
[10.] Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford University Press, 2012).
[11.] Stanley N. Salthe, Home Page, http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/(last visited Dec. 18, 2009).
[12.] Stanley N. Salthe, Analysis and Critique of the Concept of Natural Selection (and of the NeoDarwinian Theory of Evolution) in Respect (Part 1) to its Suitability as Part of Modernism's Origination Myth, as Well as (Part 2) of its Ability to Explain Organic Evolution (2006), www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/Critique_of_Natural_Select_.pdf
[13.] John Whitfield, "Biological Theory: Postmodern Evolution?," Nature, 455: 281-283 (2008).
[14.] Eugene V. Koonin, "The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?," Trends in Genetics, 25:473-474 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
[15.] William Provine, "Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis," History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

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

[shadowhawk]

IS ID SCIENCE?

 

http://intelligentde...T17_29_49-07_00

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 March 2015 - 01:07 AM.

[platypus]

Unless there are some cited peer-reviewed scientific papers on ID, it is definitely NOT a science already by definition. What are the most cited papers? Book chapters or opinion pieces do not count. Where are the breakthroughs, predictions and applications ID? I have a feeling there are none. The writing is on the wall and this thread should be closed. 

Edited by platypus, 12 March 2015 - 07:15 AM.

[brianjakub]

So what is your "theory" about the coupling constant? Please lets move this discussion elsewhere now that it's clear that ID science does not exist. 

Ok.  The complexity of the universe appears to have an extreme amount of design.  The amount of complexity that we can see appears to have been put in place by something or someone with more intelligence than we have as humans.  I will admit that the appearance of design does not make it so, but for the sake of developing a new theory I am going to assume it is so.  Let me give you an analogy to why I am dong this, and why I think it is necessary.  If I lock a chimpanzee and a pile of disassembled Honda Accord auto parts in a garage and come back in a week and find the chimpanzee sitting behind the wheel I can assume one of three things.  

1.  The chimpanzee assembled the car.  

2.  The car assembled itself.

3. Some other person or people have a key, broke into the garage and assembled it.

 

The reason for picking the third option is the same for picking intelligent design.  I can imagine how a human broke into the garage and assembled the car because I know how humans think and move parts to assemble.  I don't know how human thoughts manipulate the atoms of the brain to make our arms and legs move in coordination with what we see and hear, I just know they do.  Also I don't know how a jumble of brain cells in a human brain can recognize the pile of parts as a car while a similar pile of brain cells in a chimpanzee cannot.  So, like writing a systematic explanation on how the car was assembled is easier for me to do if I use the third assumption rather than the second, I am going to assume a designer who thinks like me and assembled the universe. That way, I can imagine a much more orderly construction of space out of virtual particles, and matter out of particles, that is needed to give us the quantum gravity and the constants we observe in physics today.  When I finish anyone who wants to, can come up with their own version of how choice one, two, or three made it happen, or any combination of them made this all happen.  For now I will just look at how the parts are assembled.  More to come on the quantumization and the construction of the vacuum of space. (dark energy and dark matter)   

[platypus]

So in effect you're saying that since the sum of angles in a triangle is 180 degrees (on a plane), someone "intelligent" must have made it so? 

 

In any case I'm asking the Moderators to close this thread up since nobody can even come up with scientific papers on ID, let alone influential ones. ID as a science does not exist. I urge others to make the same request to moderators, the philosophical discussion can continue in the other threads. 

[Antonio2014]

Totally agree with platypus. ID isn't science. It's a product of faith and a gross misunderstanding of Darwinism. Discussing it as if it were a scientific hypothesis is pointless.

 

 

Edited by Antonio2014, 12 March 2015 - 03:20 PM.

[brianjakub]

Just hold off on locking me out, let me provide the theory and the supporting evidence.  This is a forum that ID was being discussed.  It's one thing to lock ID out of scientific journals, locking ID out of forums discussing ID is just wrong.  I will provide the theory and supporting evidence a little at a time, so we can discuss it. Just give me some time, I don't do forums for a living or live in my mother's basement.

[platypus]

What can ID tell us about the origins of humans? 

 

Evolutionary theory has uncovered this, and it's beautiful:

 

http://www.bbc.com/e...uman/index.html

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Unless there are some cited peer-reviewed scientific papers on ID, it is definitely NOT a science already by definition. What are the most cited papers? Book chapters or opinion pieces do not count. Where are the breakthroughs, predictions and applications ID? I have a feeling there are none. The writing is on the wall and this thread should be closed. 

 

There are many peer-reviewed papers.  Too bad you are ignorant of them but I guess this proves ID is science!  What a joke, Darwin was not peer reviewed.  What definition says something can only be science if pee-revied?  Like anything uncomfortable you want to censor and cut off discussion
 

[shadowhawk]

Peer-Review Sources for ID.

 

http://www.discovery...wnload&id=10141