Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I'm sure there will be queues round the block to get names onto the waiting list now you have started the rush.

By posting this, I am not endorsing or standing behind the article. It is merely something to discuss.

10 Ways Darwin Got It Wrong
1. The "warm little pond" theory
2. The supposed simplicity of the cell
3. His ideas about the information inside the cell
4. His expectation of intermediate fossils
5. His failure to see the limits of variation of species
6. His discounting of the Cambrian explosion
7. His theory of homology
8. His theory of human beings evolving from apes
9. His theory of the tree of life
10. His rejection of biblical creation by God

For those interested the dicussion is on the Teaching of Evolution thread.

None of the above has ever been anything but strengthened. Darwin didnt have many things in his quiver but the overall theory is still the underpinning of developmental biology.

1. AS far as the "warm little pond" he had no primary geochemical models from which to work. Our greatly enhanced understanding of the paleoenvironmental conditions as reflected in stratigraphy all compare nicely with what happened to life at the same times that say, excess methane, oxygen activity or deep carbonates and Iron band formations occured. Certain protists today show the initial development of carbonate deposition , so it can be projected that similar species began evolving more and better deposition mechanisms and abilities to deposit shells. The thing is that . preCambrian life found in the last 15 years show that several species are just like later , but similr forms with shells. They all seem to be quite similar in morphology no matter when fossilized. AND the first shell bearing animals and notochord animals began in the proterozoic before the Ediacarn assemblages

2 nd 3 are the same and, 151 years of evidence has backed up what Darwin said waaaay beyond his expectations. NOT knowing (but expectin) is based upon scientific arm waving we all do it and Darwin proposed ways to prove what he didnt know.

4 He didnt have the intermediates thats true, but we do. Undeniably (with the exception of the Cretinists who want the world to believe that what appears to be ancestry is nothing more than a God gone wild. However, DArwin gives us a way to proive about what he thought in an entire chapter (That the new Creationist version has conveniently left out) Chapter 9 in edition 6 (I believe) THat IS--There are Gaps in the fossil records that we would have to fill by field exploration. HE WAS DEAD ON IN THAT. In the last 30 years or so,Weve had a chance to watch how the falsification process works for scientists to find these intermediate fossils in similar aged formations from around the world. Tiktaalic was such an example. More than just a "fishopod" specimen, The process by which he was discovered involved the use of similitude in age deposition for Geo Systems, series, and substages, wherein messrs SHUBIN and DEASCHLER went to a teeny are of Baffin Island where a relatively small outcrop of early continental/marine Devonian rocks were located. It took em 3 years but they found what they were suspecting would exist. NOW, to me thats deductive reasoning and using the old falsification process.

5 The limitis of variation are still based upon Millers rule that states that evoilution is merely using what youve got, and then to do something new with it. SIMPLE NO? All evidence including genetic holds that up as a glowing beacon of truth.

6 He didnt understand the Cambrian explosion and he said that it would affect his theory if and only if there was no explanation for what he called a sudden appearnace. The sudden appearnace of different forms took place from the top o the Cryogenian through the Ediacaran times or about 65 million years. Putting that into perspective, the Cambrian only lasted a total of about 54 million years, yet we dont bat an weyelash over the huge developments and evolutionary shit that happened during the CAmbrian . A rule of thum is that a changing atmosphere and continental shifting has always caused quicktime evolutionary events.

7Homology has never been a big problem to evolutionary scientists. When a good idea shows up, sometimes many species glom onto it. like "flying mammals" or "sabretoothed marsupials". Its never been a problem , im fact its underpinned the effects that genetic information can preserve

8Human beans, like birds, didnt evovle from the next rung down, these species and families arose from common ancestors to both

9 The tree of life aint a tree, yeh its a bush, so what. Metaphors dont rule good science, they only confuse people who dont understand the concepts fully

10 I think he stated in his letters that he rejected a God because if God were an intelligent designer, he really fucked up (euphemism mine)

DArwin has given us probably one of the 5 top thoughts of the millenium. (SOme argue that its the best). His work has only been made stronger as new piles of evidence support what Darwin said and reject what the Biblical based folks say

As I have explained before the theory in its essence was known well before Darwin. Even in ancient Greece. Wasn't it Democritus? Also Aristotle.

It must be wonderfully comforting to think of history in such a simplified way. One can imagine that one understands it that way and that is really nice. It claims cachet without effort.

And don't forget "Why didn't I think of that?"

How many great thoughts provided the capacites of The Beagle?

Good work farmerman. As I said, I do not endorse the article, merely posting it for conversation.

unnerstand. Ive seen sorta the same stuff published on Creationist websites when they like to "pile up" these little doubts about the whole field.

spendi, You really "don't get it'' do you? Not surprising.

well, youd just be dead wrong then wouldnt you.? Several people "Guessed" at the phenomenon of species changing through time. THy just didnt have any clue of a mechanism. Even Erasmus wrote in his poetry about nonsense.
Even a Greek Philosopher is right about the time twice a day.

That was modestly clever, and mildly amusing. It is, i am certain, however, wasted on your interlocutor.

I notice you steered around the complexity problem and confined yourself to word play. It seems to have impressed your apostles.

However good it might sound to the claque it is but a mere meaningless assertion. Instrumentation plus "suck it and see" underpin biological research.



He probably means variations on a tube with a mouth at one end and an arsehole at the other.



One might think a someone of effemm's age would have a bit more respect.

Darwin's Tree of Life worked at the time to illustrate how species were rooted in lower forms but with the technology advancing in leaps and bounds during the last 100 years, the tree still works for closely related species but it's all too complex to establish an "answers it all" diagram for all life. One would likely need a piece of paper 100 x 200 yards.

Quote:

Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 – whose pioneers believed it would provide proof of Darwin's tree – opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology.

But current research is finding a far more complex scenario than Darwin could have imagined – particularly in relation to bacteria and single-celled organisms.

These simple life forms represent most of Earth's biomass and diversity – not to mention the first two-thirds of the planet's history.

Many of their species swap genes back and forth, or engage in gene duplication, recombination, gene loss or gene transfers from multiple sources.

Unquote

Darwin wasn't "wrong," he was rudimentary. What the hell does anyone expect 200 years ago?

It's old hat, but the Creationists protesteth too much. They are inventing anything new -- it's all in the Bible. The IDers are trying to invent a new Old Testament with false science. There aren't just ten things they are wrong about.

Thats what metaphors are good for. They just fog up the real issue but they also give a sense of initial understanding of how the "bushes" of life are more like Mandelbrodt surfaces than the brachial arms of a maple.

I personally dont mind the metaphors as long as the kids can get the real point that it describes , That the concept of common decent began with the very simplest of critters.

I trust that was heavy irony Mac. It was total rubbish. Like one of those sexy dancers who never take their knickers off.

It was just effemm showing once again how many big words he has learned off by heart.

For example Mac.



He's now got the stratiographics reflecting his image as if they are a mirror and they are just packed down piles of mud from different years which could not have ended up otherwise than they are if they had tried.

I trust the quote is as meaningless to you as it is to me. If the Monte Python team had seen it I feel sure they would have incorporated it in one of their scripts most of which were composed on that principle.

What I have never understood about the creationists' argument is they seem to be telling God what is possible. Why is it impossible that God set in motion a system that was far more complex and beautiful due to its changing nature than just waving a magic wand ?

It is not logically impossible. It just gets more and more impossible in direct proportion as the desire to ignore Christian teaching does in the rumpy-pumpy zone.

Do I detect a Deist on the thread? You're right, the IDers have tried to make something they have absolutely zero proof for into science. It's the Creationist sheep in the phony science Wolf's clothing.