Intelligent Design

     Pay attention that it is 'information'- not 'data'. Information may be any proved to be valid and true statement, any logical inference, and inference by analogy ... not only pictures of fossils. Evidences against the 'theory' of Evolution might be any contradictions in the self, calculations of impossibility, probability distribution functions, etc. I was asking to see what you understand under evidences, for you obviously don't acknowledge the contradictions in the self, the calculations of impossibility, and the probability distribution functions as valid evidences. If one species of reptiles has ever become a bird, the bird 'bond' should have probability distribution function among all reptiles, if the evolution happens on 'auto-pilot'. If it is not stochastics - it remains to be ID.
     You cannot accept as evidence only the pictures of the fossil imprints and claim that you are a scientist.

     No, it is not. You don't know that it has been the evolution that has created so many species. In order to claim such thing you have to exclude all the other possibilities ... and you don't even know what are they?

That was long winded, Herald.


But it said nothing! Your challenge didn't provide one example of what you're talking about. It's called 'evidence.'

we do know tht certin yeqsts hve developed nd appeared in the chain of fungi, sometime in the middle ages nd many are only found in specific areas of the planet , the species appearance of which are dependent upon the appearances of specific animals.
WOW, your Creator hadda be up at all hours of the clock begatting fungi here and Creating new yeasts there. We know that Roman "wild yeasts" are quite different from wild wine yeasts of today (HOW DO WE KNOW?? weve actually found them in Amphora ) Yeast species re like tree rings in many cases. They've recorded their species changes by incorporating Genomes of other eukaryotes through time (red Lynn Mrgulis on this--o you don't step on your dick again)

Herald talks about "evidence against evolution" yet hes unable to make any headway with anything he mentions. Where is it in the literature?

He actually thinks theres a "conspiracy" of "EVOLUTIONITS" who are trying to shut religion up. Actually its the religionists whove been trying, by attempting to cst doubt on the evidence (but not succeeding) who are ttempting to shut evolution up.t wasn't the Evolution"lobby" that filed the case ginst Mr Scopes. Also, it was the Religion lobby that tried to have Creationism taught in biology in Louisiana that led to a SUpreme Court decision.

Evolution was not allowed to be taught AT ALL in the US public schools until very nearly 1920. And it was not taught in parochial schools until the 40's and even then the Ctholic Schools preached a concept of "Special EVolution" of humankind until John 23.

      What evidences you need. You obviously don't understand what contradiction in the self' is, do you. A contradiction in the self is that you cannot be here, down on the Earth, and on the Moon at one and the same time ... unless FM has supplied you, on the grounds of his vicious GMO practices, with some quantum characteristics.
      This is the evidence - the contraduction, which is evidencing that something cannot exist in the physical world and be 'above the laws' of physics.

You need to identify the 'contradictions.' Generalities like yours are meaningless; you need more specificity.

     I have had great teachers - in your face and in FM. Inevitably a day comes when the student start outperforming his teachers ... in terms of chatter in idle mode, for example.
      What more specific than the inapplicability of the laws of physics do you need?

You wrote,

Provide one or several specific examples.

     If you cannot find the examples, no examples provided by whoever would be able to save you.
     What about the law of conservation of energy, for example. If the Big Bang is at present along the edges of the Universe (from where it could be still observed as your colleagues claim) the Universe should be finite and isolated, bordering to the Nothing outside it (whatever the physical interpretation of this might be).
     In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change from one form (chemical for example) into another form (kinetic for example).
     In case the Universe is not isolated, it should exchange energy with the Nothing 'outside it'. So we accept that it is closed and isolated, for otherwise it should be infinite. If it is infinite, when has it been finite and become infinite ... or perhaps it has always existed. If it has always existed what exactly has the so called Big Bang (if happened at all) created?
     So let's go back to the law of conservation of energy. How much do you think is all the energy of the Universe at present - the potential energy of the gravitational continuum plus the kinetic energy of everything that is moving with some velocity plus the chemical energy of the chemical elements it is made of plus the quantum energy of the dark matter plus the value of the dark energy itself plus the energy of the visible matter if converted into energy by the famous formula of Einstein - how much do you think that makes ... and where has the Big Bang taken all that energy from ... and how? If the energy of the Universe has always existed, the Universe must have also existed before its creation by the Big Bang ... in the form of pure energy? If the Universe has always existed what exactly has the Big Bang created then?
     I am not going to ask you how much is the energy of the very 'creation' (of the 3D space out of the zero-D space).

As someone who is enamored by this Universe and able to understand this Universe by thinking like the Universe (e.g "Why would the Universe choose this to create this effect?"), I can reasonably say that the "god" in the bible is not real, but an allegory for the "Universe", as it stands before me. I see the Universe every day; the same thing that created us in its image, hence why we are consisted of its atoms, chemicals, frequencies, motions, laws and physics. Not once have I seen this "god" - no one has, but the Universe... I see it through its own eyes, for these photo receptors and my brain's neurons are connected to this Universe. There's nothing that cannot be known, when you know the Universe through yourself, rather than know yourself through the Universe.

OEM, That was pretty insightful! Aside from buddhism, your interpretation has equal standing.



Rating: ***** out of five.

My knowledge is useless without willing receptors, like you; especially knowing the Universe does not speak or listen, it cosmically reflects itself via a myriad of mirages in its own image.

Surely you must have questions to ask. I enjoy questions. When I answer something, I don't learn from it; when I question, I learn as long as I do not answer it.

     ... and what does that prove ... if it is not some secret? It proves only that the yeasts and the viruses and the immune systems of the animals (and of the humans) have continuously changed in their striving to achieve perfect balance or dominate each other. It proves only the the immune system is adaptable to changes in compliance with the changes of the viruses and the yeasts (and the antibiotics in the recent times). It proves only that it is a marathon without a finishing line. It does not prove that the history record of the yeasts and the clinical report records of the viruses ... and the production medicine records of the pharmaceutical industry have produced (or are even just able to produce) any brand new species. Can you name any example of a brand new species appearing owing to changes in the history record of yeasts and viruses at some point of time?
     If you are curious to know this hypothesis is much more plausible (not that I am supporting it) in terms of ability to change the DNS sequences than the hypothesis of stochastic mutations and deviations in the gene shuffle (whatever that might mean).

can you name any that didn't?

     What "any" and what "didn't"?

that's the problem with ADHD, one has problems recalling what one just stated.

     You have no verifiable and validated evidences that the question is exactly about Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and not, for example, about Retard Question Asking Disorder ... or Making Yourself More Interesting than You Are Disorder. Do you have anything to say in the original and main theme of the thread, or you are going to make Ph.D. theses in philosophy on the theme: 'The End of the Consistency and the Fall of the Third Shadow'?

is today a school holiday for you?

     FM, why don't you confess that you don't have any evidences on the evolution 'theory'. What is more -you don't have even the slightest idea about what you are talking ... but this does not deter you from claiming that you thoroughly understand everything. Not to mention that at first you have to prove that the evidences are valid evidences of evolution, the processes are based on evolution and nothing else.