Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The Train Wreck by spenduis with thanks to Anthony Burgess who was also Jesuiticated and thus quite interesting.

The fireman saw the twisted rails and sweat began to start
The driver felt a feeling of despair within his heart
The passengers underpants were filling up with clart
The racket they were making could not be hushed by fart.

For those who don't know that's a "galloping fourteener" which is a good party game when you get bored with sodding scrabble. Scrabble is a real anti-IDers tipple.

I sometimes get a hypothesis feeling that the naughty words were evolved due to their being easy to rhyme and scan so that the best poetry could be made by the Rabelasian aspect of humanity.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Oh please, Ros. I'm gonna laugh til I cry here.

Sorry about that RL, your posts just make me laugh. This misconception of evolution which you have is so silly it's almost an artwork of inanity.

Don't just throw this type of accusation out there. What misconception is that?

Your characterization of evolution as 'predicting' that traits are passed on from one generation to the other was just plain silly, Ros. Admit it and move on.

In fact, evolution is all about 'predicting' the opposite. That's the meat and potatoes of the theory, Ros.

Mankind didn't need evolutionary theory to know that traits are passed on from one generation to the next. We've known that for ages.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
(Yes, I know that you postulate it as a process over many generations, etc it still isn't even close to being proven that one organism can change into another at ANY point. Because no matter how you slice it, at some point organism "A" must beget an organism "B" , right? )

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider proof of evolution?

Well, what you will need is a way to add genetic information of a beneficial nature repeatedly--- MANY more times than you add harmful genetic information (in violation of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, yeah I know you don't believe it ever applies to the real world. Oh well....)

Every honest evolutionist admits that mutations are overwhelming harmful and/or neutral in effect , not beneficial. I include you in this because , if memory serves, you have conceded this point.

(Leaving out the neutral, what do you hold that the ratio of harmful-to-beneficial mutations is, Ros? )

So how about a workable, testable model showing fish turning into something other than fish.

Or birds turning into something other than birds, (not just changing the size of shape of their beak. )

Or if you want to start with something simpler, like a worm, be my guest. But the oft referenced example of virus 'evolution' in the lab just won't do. They are still viruses, at last check.

Creatures that can in turn , then, reproduce their new kind. (Not some type of mutated mess that barely manages to survive in the lab.)

Then show that it all could happen without INTELLIGENCE and DESIGN, (which is exactly what you will need if you are to accomplish it --- lots of PhD brainpower and a good deal of planning and careful execution.)

Show that it could not only have happened once, but multiple times to make the many jumps required of evolution to have brought us from microbes to man.

Still unaddressed at that point would be how did we get from non-living matter to living organisms without violating entropy.

Your position on 'natural selection' providing a 'survival advantage' to base chemicals is completely unrealistic. But if you'd like to defend it, go for it.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL, Darwin spent about 6 years just studying the differences between and among species and families barnacles that make up the class cirripedia , members of the Crustacean subphylum. He wondered about the origins of the many variations and developed a primitive yet fairly accurate tree (wed call it a cladogram today). Yet he never included any of it in the "Origin..."

It demonstrated the base by which the development and common ancestry issue of evolution was derived even without a then understanding of genetics.It requires some work and study that your rather flippant responses fail to acknowledge.
Quote:
A re-emerging trait that was lost ( a trait being lost is, of course, fully consistent with entropy while the development of new organs and systems by the addition of genetic information is not)
explain what you mean here? a "re-emergent trait" from a series of totally different and now extinct species says much more than you seem to recognize. How does entropy fit in here?

You had said:

farmerman wrote:

The species of clouded leopard is , once again, apparently evolving "sabre toothness" does that qualify?

To which I had replied:

real life wrote:

Not really. It is , as you said, taking 'what is already there'.

that is, if this trait is simply showing up again after many years absence, is it fair to say it is 're-evolving' and not simply re-emerging?

Has any new genetic information been added to the population that was not present before?

I know that regarding the human genome it is common to say that we know the function of probably less than 10% of it. No doubt that same is true of the cats.

How can we so confidently proclaim that this re-emergent trait is now 'evolving' , when we haven't much of a clue what is going on?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

How can we so confidently proclaim that this re-emergent trait is now 'evolving' , when we haven't much of a clue what is going on?

And yet you consistently and confidently proclaim the existence of a supernatural deity. While gentlemen like fm produce reams of evidence, all you ever do is blow smoke up everyone's arse and back up nothing with facts. You real life, are nothing but a worthless ******* hypocrite.

0 Replies

One thing is clear - no profit is to be had by any assumption rl might have taxed his capacity for sillyness. There, most certainly, is a quality unstrained. While rl's style and substance are quite different compared with spendi's, the 2 are in the same league.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

real life wrote:

How can we so confidently proclaim that this re-emergent trait is now 'evolving' , when we haven't much of a clue what is going on?

And yet you consistently and confidently proclaim the existence of a supernatural deity. While gentlemen like fm produce reams of evidence, all you ever do is blow smoke up everyone's arse and back up nothing with facts. You real life, are nothing but a worthless **** hypocrite.

Well, Wilso, I asked Farmerman and Ros for some examples of evolution in progress now.

Farmerman suggested the leopard.

How 'bout you? Give us an example of a half finished organ or system that is evolving in a cat near you. Or a dog. Or a bear. Or a horse. Or a bird. Or a fish............

You're not a hypocrite, right? So give us an example.

When I say 'we haven't much of a clue what is going on' , I am referring to our limited knowledge of the function of the genome.

If 90% or better of it's function is a mystery to the best scientists (and it is. A while back I posted an article that indicates scientists' interest in a second layer of encoding in DNA. It's a complex business that we have barely gotten our toes wet in. ); then any trait that shows up in a population, (such as sabre-toothedness in cats) stands just as good a chance (much better really, especially since the trait has already been seen in the past in cats ) of being an expression of ALREADY EXISTING INFORMATION, rather than 'new' genetic information which has been produced by mutation and causes the organism to 'evolve' said trait.

You're obviously ready to back up your position with facts, since you chide me as 'having none' --- so roll out your facts. Give us your best example of modern day evolution of a new organ or system.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

One thing is clear - no profit is to be had by any assumption rl might have taxed his capacity for sillyness. There, most certainly, is a quality unstrained. While rl's style and substance are quite different compared with spendi's, the 2 are in the same league.

There's plenty of room for you in this, timber.

Give us an example of modern day 'evolution' of a new organ or system that previously did not exist.

Guys, there should be hundreds, or even thousands, of examples to choose from -- if evolution is the 'fact' you contend it is.

0 Replies

Oh sure, Big Bird--trot out dozens of supported examples to refute the brave lad.

My bet is that he'll take one, at most two, examples, and attempt to pick apart the language of the source document, without, of course, addressing the quality of the scientific inquiry which underlies the work described therein, and without being willing to acknowledge that the source document will have been written by someone very likely as inexpert as himself. We got that out of him when he made his silly claims about the discovery of "hobbits," and loudly demanded to know why scientists were not as vocal in reporting that no hobbits had been found as they were in reporting that they had. This ignores, as was pointed out to him then, that scientists don't decide what gets published and what doesn't, and don't write the reports of their work which appears in popular news outlets.

It will interesting, too, to see if he just disappears from the thread until this blows over, which is another common tactic of his.

0 Replies

Gmorning all, I see the boards been active Timber, Im not going to read all those urls till I get back home in September. I suppose RL asked for what youve provided, and it didnt look like it took you much time , now the honest thing for rl to do, is read.

RL said

Quote:

that is, if this trait is simply showing up again after many years absence, is it fair to say it is 're-evolving' and not simply re-emerging?

The difference between re-evolving and re-emerging would be what?

This trait is separated by oceans and 10000 years. Its an example of how the exons are retaining the lessons of evolution and that the environment can reassert Carrolls statement that "genes carry the basis for variation, the environment does the selection"
Since most evolution is adaptive , an entire sequence of tripqrt codons (theHox) genes have multiple expressions in insect wings,clavicles, thoraci encasements for lungs, and the most overlooked feture , the dorso, ventral inversion that(among other things) differentiates invertebrates from vertebrates.

! What does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with sabre toothness. I think youre speaking out of another orifice now.

2 If you look at a genome between chimps and man, you will see a few new gene sequences that are duplications, inversions and outright clipping where a transposon has become a telomere and weve wound up with one less chromosome pair.
The genes are pretty much the same and theres good reason for the differences. BUT did they drive evolution of the common ancestor? or did the common ancestor merely adapt in fashiions unique to its adopted lifestyle. (changing from forest to savannah made apes adapt to living on ground, which further adaptation resulted in upright posture which begat a whole bunch of other features that include, supposedly, bigger brains.

3All these fossils that fit into a temporal and structural hierachy that fits so perfectly is always denied by you Creationists. You just try to ignore the vast pile of data and focus in on one or two curect "unknowns". Creationists would have their entire world be a series of snapshots where truth is based on one moment in time. If we have no firm answer about, say, the existence of the coelocanth in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, you try to railroad that into a grander "view" that says that ALL animals were created at once. Yet , deep down, youve gotta know that your view is mostly throwaway data.

After all, this thread was started to discuss whether ID was religion or science. Weve pretty much answered that its religion, since it , genetically is derived from The Creation Science Institute and the Creation Research Institute. It grew from a glitch in the CRI's plans that was inserted by the US Supreme Court.The rules were (hopefully) changed so that noone would notice and the Paulian arguments were brought forward to provide some historical context. Then they moved forward after outfitting all the proponents with "Lab coats". You, on the other hand rl, have been a unique bird. Youve stuck with the original Creationists doctrine, shunning all the arguments for ID. Now you realize that youve got over 5 separate movements born of the work of The early "floodists".
Youve got more inspection to do over your own doctrine and how broken up it is into subdoctrines that I wonder whether you realize what you buy into.?

Im curious how you can avoid the findings of science? Or are you convinced that all science is a big conspiracy by the Godless?rl

0 Replies

hi guys,

Rest assured, Setanta, I will read them all, though it may take some time this being the time of year that it is. Hope you are having a great morning btw.

Thanks muchos to Timber for the effort, unfortunately I suspect that none of them will be what I asked for -- namely the modern day in-progress 'evolution' of a new organ or system. But we shall see, perhaps my suspicion will not be borne out.

Farmerman, I don't 'avoid' the findings of science but I guess I do tend to question both the presuppositions and the interpretations based on same.

I always ask 'is there another way to look at this?' while most evolutionists tend to ask 'how does this fit in with evolution?'

To be sure, I have my own presuppositions (we all do) and the interpretations tend to follow , don't they?

I simply admit that that is the case.

Anyone who considers himself totally objective and disspassionate is kidding himself, wouldn't you agree?

But to answer your further query, no I don't see science as a conspiracy of the Godless. Not at all.

(My point about sabre-toothedness and entropy was simply to point out that this recent manifestation of the trait is probably not at all due to the addition of any new genetic information to the cat population (which would not be consistent with entropy), but is probably rather simply an expression of genetic information which was ALREADY there -- possibly occasionally expressed but unobserved by man, or possibly unexpressed until recently. Probably the former.)

0 Replies

Upon what basis do you attempt to assert that evolution can only be shown to occur in a situation in which a new organ would have been created? You're just attempting to change the terms of the discussion to suit your argument--evolution does not assert that an organism only evolves by creating theretofore unexistant organs. Evolution is often the expression of traits which had been present previously, but which, conferring no advantage, had not become strikingly evident in an organism. Additionally, you continue to insist that evolution needs to produce something which you would consider strikingly new to have shown itself operable--such as your famous dodge about a fish becoming something which is not a fish. This is merely your insistence that you won't believe evolution to be in process unless you can see something strikingly new, and therefore your inferential refusal to see "gradualism." The fossil record, and increasingly, the record of scientific observation in short-generation organism such as bacteria suggests that both suddenly new organism can arise, and that organisms can change gradually.

About all we're getting from you is a new species of word game. Once again, of course, your putative ability to demonstrate that science has gotten something wrong, and your continued assertions--both direct and inferential--that science can't answer all questions (something scientists never claim to be able to do), does not mean that you have a sound basis for stipulating the existence and activities of your imaginary friend.

What, "real life," is your circumstantial evidence that a creation has occured?

0 Replies

Quote:

Biological symbiosis, the mutual dependence of two species on each other (such as bees and flowers and anti-Iders and Creationists) for survival, has often been cited as evidence supporting divine design. Symbiosis demands that two different but uniquely compatible species arise at the same time and in the same place with the morphological structures in place to support the interdependence.

0 Replies

Quote:

As unlikely as that may be, imagine the improbability that three-partner symbiosis could occur by random process. But that is what scientists have discovered: three very different species each of which contributes vitally to the survival of the other two. This tripartate grouping includes leaf cutting ants, a type of parasol mushroom, and an antibiotic-producing bacterium as well as anti-IDers, Creationists and lawyers.

0 Replies

The Evidence For Evolution (in general terms)

Quote:

Source: David Quanmen, National Geographic Magazine, November 2004

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

that is, if this trait is simply showing up again after many years absence, is it fair to say it is 're-evolving' and not simply re-emerging?

. Thats it , make it sound like an everyday occurence. Whats the difference between re-emergence and re-evolving?
Im not sure there is one in this context.

As far as new genetic material, there are at least a major difference in genes betwen leopard species.

Quote:

I always ask 'is there another way to look at this?' while most evolutionists tend to ask 'how does this fit in with evolution?'

You have consistently looked at data and said"is there any way I can refute evolution, same difference" SCience , by deductive reasoning, has eliminated a Creationist mentality, that is true. Mostly because it doesnt work(as youre "everything was created at once", shows us).

Quote:

Give us an example of modern day 'evolution' of a new organ or system that previously did not exist.

The genetic code between humans and chimps is only different between the exons and the chromosomal structure has fused one of the telomeres into a centromere and made the human chromosomal compliment 46 pairs instead of 48, but the genes within are essentially the same in the coding portion.

0 Replies

Sounds like a rationalisation of incestuous bestiality to me fm.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

Biological symbiosis, the mutual dependence of two species on each other (such as bees and flowers and anti-Iders and Creationists) for survival, has often been cited as evidence supporting divine design.

. Your actually talking commensalism here , a more host dependent, non parasitic interdependency. Commensal relations develop with time, like free-living symbionts turn to be come commensals not at the same time. BUT , assuming your assertion was correct, How would a commensalism , rising at the same time between two (or forty) species show intelligent design?
In your own words please no cutty and pasty.

Wandel-David Quammen wrote a book called the SOng of the Dodo, which was a review ofisland evolution on archipeligos that rsult in ring speciation, where a species could be introduced at one end of an archipeligo and keep evolving as it island hopped, then via a circumsatnce (such as at the Wallace Line or large atolls in teh SUnda, The species would be fully evolved and "meet up with their own mother species" . This is whats happening on the islands of the Galapogos.
Quammen is essentially a self taught naturalist (like Darwin) and a clear writer. I use quotes from him in many classes where stuff by Gould or the Father of modern Geology(Hutton) presents dense and tangent filled writing like our English friend.

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population.

Given the well known lower birth rate of higher class females in our social system the proof that evolutionary theory has no relevance to human social organisation is self evident unless our sexual selection arrangements are leading us to ruination in which case the higher classes are fundamentally subversive.

0 Replies

fm wrote- (sounding a bit miffed)

Quote:

How would a commensalism , rising at the same time between two (or forty) species show intelligent design?
In your own words please no cutty and pasty.

The idea, as I understand it, is that the mutual dependence of anti-IDers and creationists (and lawyers, book publishers, newspaper editors, TV producers, judges, the bored and officials of the courts to name a few)could not be predicted under any Darwinian principles and that for want of an explanation for those who need one an intelligent designer is posited speculatively.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know