Intelligent Design Theory Solution

real life said

Quote:

A little more on irreducible complexity. Basically part of the idea is that IF complex structures such as the eye or the ear evolved SLOWLY, piece by piece as evolution proposes, it would take a long time (many generations) for any benefit to the organism.

Howabout if it appeared several times a a bauplan item in totally different classes?The eye and other sensory organs have been "invented" repeatedly in totally different means. Eg a trilobite exhibited crystalline structures while the earliest mollusca had extensions from their mantle. Nature often provides multiple solutions with different plans to serve as a common feature. Many appeared in pre Cambrian times then again in early Cambrian and continuously through the Paleozoic. Its not so much irreducible complexity as it is an "overabundance of bad ideas"then real life quotes

Quote:

There is little doubt, however, that such a change took place; not only is it clear from the fossil record, but the sequence of changes from an articular-quadrate joint to a dentary squamosal joint with the articular and quadrate participating in the middle ear can actually be seen in the developing young of opossums.

If Im not dreaming, this is extracted from a recent work by J. M. van der Dennen, whose long articles are mainly on the evolution of societal structure. In this paper he explains that multifunction developments of body structures had , as I like to call it, "a need to grow basis"
The therapsid reptiles had an ability to grasp and chew poorly, the development of a dentition pattern did not "wait around " the therapsids had a number of facial/cranial features that show up in fossils and securely establish the overall development of mammals ( you have to remember that there were at least 4 classes of mammals that didnt survise)
The complete list that van der Dennen didnt list include
double occipital condyles(allowed the head greater movement) some ictidiosaurs had this
a secondary palate-cynodonts and ictidiosaurs
enlarging dentary-cynodonts and ictidiosaurs (allows chewing)
reduced quadrate-articular in therapsids that evolved to a squamosal dentary joint
external naries and tympana in ictidiosaurs and cynodonts to internals in early mammals (the going from external to internal can be easily seen to be a gradual, not a relict feature)
Remember the expanded brain case of mammals, and their ability to chew made the internalizing ofthe ear features that real life poses a group advance. Reptiles kept growing through life while mammals stop at a max growth point so the fixing of features in structure became a fossilized reality. van der Dennen is an ethologist who works in evolutionary development of populational fetures and things like love , war, and politics. His opinions are valid but not the end authority on taxanomic distinction and evolution of skull features. Id reccomend that the last edition of Colbert is about as final a say in such developmental matters as any.

Quote:

But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. ...... The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation.

The molecular biology of life has a rather extensive bibliography. Real life seems to ignore it.This is quite typical of Creationists. They like to sound problems as if they are real. There are literally hundreds of books on the hisory of the development and understanding of RNA/DNA and coding, and these books are mostly printed by Cold Springs Harbor Press
The issue of an RNA world at the beginnings of life and the transposition and interaction of DNA, mRNA and enzymatic reactions in coding and transposition is worth a lot more space than a simple ass comment about the bleedin obvious.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Irreducible complexity simply states the obvious, that to be useful to an organism some substances or structures are dependent on the presence and function of others.

So what. Many substances or structures develop without a specific use. Then later on, those substances may well be used in different processes just because they are available, thus bridging the gap to usefulness.

Irreducible Complexity is an invalid theory, and was thoroughly demonstrated to be so a long time ago.

0 Replies

Re: rosborne979

rosborne979 wrote:

Secret Agent Man wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
The fossil record is just one of many credible pieces of evidence for evolution.

To which fossil record are you referring to? Could you perhaps give us a source (preferably a web site) that can verify your statement?

I'm not referring to a written record of fossils. I'm referring to the fossils themselves as a record of life on this planet.

Just as a tree ring record tells us things about the life of the tree, so the fossil record tells us things about the life which existed long ago.

Much of what we find in the fossil record is predicted by evolutionary theory, and is therefor a piece of evidence which supports evolution (Scientific theories must make predictions).

In addition, despite countless fosssil discoveries, not a single one has ever been confirmed which conflicts with the general theory of evolution.

But, to list just one example of evidence for evolution as originally requested, doesn't do the body of evidence justice, for one of the hallmarks of evolutionary theory is the very fact that it is exceedingly multi-disciplinary. Many many overlapping scientific disciplines support the theory with not a single one in conflict. Together they weave an undeniable proof, far beyond any reasonable doubt. And that is why Evolution is a fact. To even attempt to deny evolution is to question the very nature of reality and of our ability to deal with it. And if that's the game people want to play, then we're no longer talking science, we're talking philosophy.

Why is evolution only a theory? If the fossil record is interpreted through the ideas of evolution, then won't all your answers indicate evolution? One other question, where the heck are all the in-between fossils?

0 Replies

Imagine if, instead of the energy expended on arguing about how the Earth came to be, we instead used that energy in stewardship of it, regardless of where it came from. Wow.

0 Replies

Re: rosborne979

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Why is evolution only a theory?

All scientific theories are called theories. This one happens to be so well demonstrated that it's considered a scientific fact as well.

thunder_runner32 wrote:

If the fossil record is interpreted through the ideas of evolution, then won't all your answers indicate evolution?

You can interpret things any way you want, but the interpretation has to make sense. And in the case of fossil evidence, the only scientific theory we have which makes any sense is evolution.

"Poofism" is not allowed in science, and there simply isn't any other scientific explanation which even comes close to explaining what we see.

thunder_runner32 wrote:

One other question, where the heck are all the in-between fossils?

There are lots of in-between fossils; Horse lines, Whale lines, Human lines, Bird lines, Dinosaur lines, etc etc etc.

0 Replies

I have to remind real life, as an afterthought, that Creationism and Intelligent Design are pretty much mutually exclusive topics. ID "buys in" to almost all science, even evolution.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I have to remind real life, as an afterthought, that Creationism and Intelligent Design are pretty much mutually exclusive topics. ID "buys in" to almost all science, even evolution.

I oculdn't agree more and I'm just an idiot musician....

0 Replies

Re: rosborne979

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Why is evolution only a theory? If the fossil record is interpreted through the ideas of evolution, then won't all your answers indicate evolution? One other question, where the heck are all the in-between fossils?

Because, as I imagine even most young adults know, in science, what is suggested but not completely proven is called a hypothesis, and what is regarded as proven is called a theory. What rock have you been living under?

0 Replies

Re: rosborne979

Brandon9000 wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Why is evolution only a theory? If the fossil record is interpreted through the ideas of evolution, then won't all your answers indicate evolution? One other question, where the heck are all the in-between fossils?

Because, as I imagine even most young adults know, in science, what is suggested but not completely proven is called a hypothesis, and what is regarded as proven is called a theory. What rock have you been living under?

Huh?????

Science considers "theory"...to be "fact?"

0 Replies

Re: rosborne979

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:

Why is evolution only a theory? If the fossil record is interpreted through the ideas of evolution, then won't all your answers indicate evolution? One other question, where the heck are all the in-between fossils?

Because, as I imagine even most young adults know, in science, what is suggested but not completely proven is called a hypothesis, and what is regarded as proven is called a theory. What rock have you been living under?

Huh?????

Science considers "theory"...to be "fact?"

Quote:

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Source

0 Replies

Re: rosborne979

Brandon9000 wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Why is evolution only a theory? If the fossil record is interpreted through the ideas of evolution, then won't all your answers indicate evolution? One other question, where the heck are all the in-between fossils?

Because, as I imagine even most young adults know, in science, what is suggested but not completely proven is called a hypothesis, and what is regarded as proven is called a theory. What rock have you been living under?

[/b][/color]

third rock from the sun, where've you been?

0 Replies

Re: rosborne979

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:

Why is evolution only a theory? If the fossil record is interpreted through the ideas of evolution, then won't all your answers indicate evolution? One other question, where the heck are all the in-between fossils?

Because, as I imagine even most young adults know, in science, what is suggested but not completely proven is called a hypothesis, and what is regarded as proven is called a theory. What rock have you been living under?

Huh?????

Science considers "theory"...to be "fact?"

Quote:
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Source

I withdraw my comment!

I should not have used the word "fact"...because you did not use the word "fact" in your post. You called a scientific "theory" something "regarded as proven"...and you are correct.

My bad!

0 Replies

Re: rosborne979

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
thunder_runner32 wrote:

Why is evolution only a theory? If the fossil record is interpreted through the ideas of evolution, then won't all your answers indicate evolution? One other question, where the heck are all the in-between fossils?

Because, as I imagine even most young adults know, in science, what is suggested but not completely proven is called a hypothesis, and what is regarded as proven is called a theory. What rock have you been living under?

Huh?????

Science considers "theory"...to be "fact?"

Quote:
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Source

I withdraw my comment!

I should not have used the word "fact"...because you did not use the word "fact" in your post. You called a scientific "theory" something "regarded as proven"...and you are correct.

My bad!

It's not your bad. This was my college major, so, obviously, I am familiar with it.

0 Replies

Hold on, if the theory is backed by evidence, and supposed repeatable testing, why is it not a scientific law?

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Hold on, if the theory is backed by evidence, and supposed repeatable testing, why is it not a scientific law?

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook's law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Source

0 Replies

I always liked the simple explanation ,
"A theory explains a related set of phenomena. For a theory to be fact, all the evidence must support it and No evidence can refute it.

In all these years practicing , I never put it together that a LAw is best described as a single equation, yer right rosborne. One cool one is on your talley board from me whenever we meet.

yeh Beers law Stokes LAw, Henry's Law, Joes lAw (well I just made up Joes law to see if you were payin attention)

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Irreducible complexity simply states the obvious, that to be useful to an organism some substances or structures are dependent on the presence and function of others.

So what. Many substances or structures develop without a specific use. Then later on, those substances may well be used in different processes just because they are available, thus bridging the gap to usefulness.

Irreducible Complexity is an invalid theory, and was thoroughly demonstrated to be so a long time ago.

So an organism might develop some partial eye structures, for instance, for no apparent use and retain them for many generations until additional structures show up to make them useful? How lucky of them. Laughing

Your faith is commendable, but not very credible Rosborne.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Irreducible complexity simply states the obvious, that to be useful to an organism some substances or structures are dependent on the presence and function of others.

So what. Many substances or structures develop without a specific use. Then later on, those substances may well be used in different processes just because they are available, thus bridging the gap to usefulness.

Irreducible Complexity is an invalid theory, and was thoroughly demonstrated to be so a long time ago.

So an organism might develop some partial eye structures, for instance,

No, a partial *structure*, not a partial *EYE structure*.

real life wrote:

for no apparent use and retain them for many generations until additional structures show up to make them useful? How lucky of them.

Your faith is commendable, but not very credible Rosborne.

I'm not just making stuff up Real, Irreducible Complexity is a known boondoggle, and Intelligent Design is just another desperate attempt to foist religion off onto unsuspecting kids in school.

For an intelligeng guy, you are being rather dense in your attempts to avoid the salient points of this issue.

0 Replies

real life said

Quote:

So an organism might develop some partial eye structures, for instance, for no apparent use and retain them for many generations until additional structures show up to make them useful? How lucky of them. [Laughing]

.
real life has the market cornered on being obtuse, (I rather believe that hes sharp enough, he just wants to avoid information that disagrees with a" real life" worldview)

There are many examples of eyes in the fossil record. Its not a matter of a shortage of good design , but indeed, evolution has shown that there is always an overabundance of bad design"

If you wish to see a really good and yet readable discussion on multiple solutions re the eye in particular, check out "The TRILOBITE__WITNESS TO EVOLUTION", by Richard Fortey, the chief Paleontologist at the London Museum of Natural History.

Its a bugger being stuck with an argument like "Irreducible Complexity", Cause it leaves you no place to go (even if you could get some data)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

real life said
Quote:
So an organism might develop some partial eye structures, for instance, for no apparent use and retain them for many generations until additional structures show up to make them useful? How lucky of them. [Laughing]
.
real life has the market cornered on being obtuse, (I rather believe that hes sharp enough, he just wants to avoid information that disagrees with a" real life" worldview

I know. His obvious dodging is getting very tedious. His questions took a more thoughtful path for a while there, and I had hope that we might actually explore some valid points, but every time we come down to the heart of an issue (where philosophical stances must be defined), he see's the corner he's being backed into an squirts away on some meaningless dodge.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know