Part1, William Dembski and Sean McDowell discuss Intelligent Design

[Drgamedood]

Ol Billy needs to do something other than propagate bullshit pseudoscience like ID.

[odinata]

Dumbski's been debunked....THOROUGHLY

[TheXiantruth]

silly atheists and your obsession with Demski.....

[OpiatedBliss]

2:49

notice the freudiaan slip. he is, a massive troll

[mojorhythm]

Sean looks like a member of the Jonas Brothers. He probably makes his kids wear purity rings.

[gregrutz]

Sorry you lost in court, William.

[gregrutz]

Nothing has been proven to be designed, scientificly there is no evidence.

[gregrutz]

My next door neighbor is a designer, maybe she did it?

[infinitemika]

@gregrutz

wow!! ur a troll...knew it! get lost...dpls do not make urself look more stupid....go find others who live with mama dont have jobs, and think they understand life cause they watched 3 , 5 min u tube vids on evo...lol...

[gregrutz]

@infinitemika Fuck You.

ID lost in court, it is creationism. Every religion has a story, why is yours the right one?

[infinitemika]

@gregrutz

"ID lost in court, it is creationism. Every religion has a story, why is yours the right one?"

why not get of your high horse and actually read it like zi did. Its great, isnrt it? to make statements in ignorance. I did it for 12 yrs...loved it! till I was challenged...prove to me that the bible is wrong my friend...give some examples...il wait patiently ....VERY patiently

[gregrutz]

@infinitemika Dinosaurs in the bible? JOB 40: 15 Behold now behemoth 16 His strength is in his loins and his force is in the navel of his belly. Dinosaurs come from eggs, NO NAVEL. . The 'circle of the earth'> circles are flat. . Galileo proved the earth is not the center of everything as people thought because it say so in the bible. . And there was no global flood, wrong again.

[infinitemika]

@gregrutz circle of the earth. Actually ..in the greek..its translate as sphere...u learnt something

in addition, Galileo was a stanch beliver..and admitted that he came to the notion of a spherical earth by reading the bible.

NO Flood?? ur joking right? even secular atheistic science agrees there WAS a flood..a massive one 6000 yrs ago..what they differ on is if it was world wide as claimed in genesis.

pls read more

[gregrutz]

@infinitemika Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter and proved the earth is not the center of everything like the bible says.

Try and get you facts straight.

There was no global flood, lots of local, even large ones. Lots of Chinese lived through them.

[infinitemika]

@gregrutz

" Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter and proved the earth is not the center of everything like the bible says."

pls show me this claim..chapter and verse pls..waiting....

"There was no global flood, lots of local, even large ones. Lots of Chinese lived through them."

lol...science would disagree with you, but of course you have ur bias so it wont matter.

[gregrutz]

@infinitemika Geologist know the earth was old and there was never a global flood for over 200 years.

You are the one brainwashed with religion, I don't have a bias, I have an education. Were you home schooled, LOL.

[infinitemika]

@gregrutz

lol. ys I was home schooled....and if you weren’t so ignorant u would know that home schooled kids beat public schooled kids 3-1 in national debates...lol. pls...can u PLS bring something good?? Something I can think about for more than 3.5 secs before I answer?

[gregrutz]

@infinitemika SO YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE LOL

[gregrutz]

@infinitemika The third layer down in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. It came from wind blown sands in a desert. The Redwall Limestone has slow growing corals, how did a flood make these distinct layers of rock?

[infinitemika]

@gregrutz

show me the study, and the peer reviews..thanks..waiting......­when you give up, ill send you the peer reviewed data regarding a massive amount of water that came VERY quick created the canyon...but will let you study urselve..only way to learn about things you comment on before learning about them

[gregrutz]

@infinitemika It is not about how the canyon was carved, the question is how did all those different layers get 8000 feet above sea level.

The third layer down in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. It came from wind blown sands in a desert. The fossils in it prove it.

The Redwall Limestone has slow growing corals, how did a flood make these distinct layers of rock?

Read a geology book so you don't look so retarded.

Home schooling didn't work.

[infinitemika]

@gregrutz read geology books& ive also read evo books, that clamed pilt down man was missing link...or that lucy was..or Nebraska man...but we al lknow they arent. Its u my friend who looks retarded...u cant think on ur own,u NEED others to think for u. There’re 100sif not 1000s of phd scientists who disagree w/allot of what evo teaches,does that mean there’reretarded? BTW..home schooled kids on average beat out public schooled kids by 27% on SAT tests this is fact, not fiction likemost evo

[gregrutz]

@infinitemika Now you are lieing. No book claims piltdown man is a missing link, science discovered the only hoax many years ago.

Nebraska man was IDed as a pigs tooth by the second person to look at it.

Why don't you look at the hundreds of real fossils, not the one fake one.

And home schooled kids will never pass a science test.

[gregrutz]

. You claimed that the transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion were all there

YES, THEY ARE THE PRE-CAMBRIAN FOSSILS.

EVERYONE IN THE CAMBRIAN PERIOD HAD A MOM AND A DAD, JUST LIKE TODAY. The were all small marine creatures, you act surprized like a dinosaur came from a sponge. There were no land animals at all in the Cambrian Period.

[gregrutz]

ID movement? It is not science, make it a movement. LOL

[GetMeThere1]

Wow. This demonstrates pretty clearly Dembski's "evidence-resistant" biases and his inability to separate his feelings from his thinking. They all sound the same: first they BELIEVE, and then they try to create arguments to SUPPORT their belief--a sure way to go nowhere intellectually.

[Acrimonator]

Pushing any idea based on fear of death is not a faith move... How hypocrit one must be to simply state such a non sense...

[MrMZaccone]

"It's not just a faith move." Sorry William, I.D. istself is a complete "faith move", regardless of what kind of apohenic nonsense you want to preach.

[Nate2203]

"what you believe will control you"

I think he meant what religion you believe will control you. lol

[kungfumama]

@Nate2203  Yeah...let the Light shine in!!! ^_^

[DarthHater100]

Wow, William Dembski is slimmy.

[kungfumama]

@DarthHater100 ouch...so harsh! A geek maybe, but geeks are the successful ones! Why is he "slimmy" to you?

[IDtaksovr]

Most of the animal phyla that exist today appeared abruptly during the Cambrian era. The Cambrian radiation lasted around 10 million years, and occurred after more than 3 billion years of the non-evolution of single celled organisms.

According to Darwinian theory, phya should appear at the END of a truly enormous chain of transitions, not the beginning.

But what we find instead is a pre-Cambrian strata replete with the fossils of tiny soft-bodied sponge embryo's and not much else?

Ouch!

[kungfumama]

@IDtaksovr hehe...and that's why it's called a "theory"! And one that has been DISproven. lol

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr

Cambrian radiation? No, it is a time Period lasting 60 million years.

There was 3 billion years of Evolution of single celled life before that.

At some point life became multicelled, boom, explosion.

Darwinianianin Theory is 150 years out of date, he is dead.

Pre- Cambrian > soft bodied small marine creatures

Cambrian > hard bodied small marine creatures.

WOW!

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate" This quote from Talk Origins Claim CC300.

Why did single celled life remain single celled for 3BY? Why was it not evolving madly to fill the ecological niches? I criticise the latest version of Darwinism (i.e. Neo Darwinism / the modern synthesis etc. The core of the modern theory remains surprisingly similar, however.

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr ''Why did single celled life remain single celled for 3BY?''

It took a long time for cells to become complex, so what?

.

''Why was it not evolving madly to fill the ecological niches?''

They did, it is called the Cambrian Explosion. What is your point?

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"It took a long time for cells to become complex, so what?"

Is that your opinion, or do you have any evidence to support it?

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr

Yes, but you won't look at it. It is called the fossil record. It seems to be invisible to religious people.

The preCambrian animals were soft bodied, right.

The Cambrian animals had shells and backbones, right

The next period had animals that walked on land.

The nest period, rock layers on top of older layers, have dinosaur fossils.

Lots of dinosaurs, changing over 160 million years.

And evolving everthing you think of as bird like; hollow bones, feathers, oval eggs, etc.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"It seems to be invisible to religious people."

Well sho me the fossil EVIDENCE of soft bodied preCambrian transitionals. We have the internet nowadays. Darwinists must have plastered examples of preCambrian ancestors all over it by now - to embarrass Creationists!

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr Cambrian ancestors ? sure!

see the box next to the word SEARCH?

Type in ''Pre-Cambrian fossils''.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"Type in ''Pre-Cambrian fossils''."

You have obviously done your research. You claimed that all the preCambrian evidence is there for the existence of transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion. You must be eager to give me your best examples!

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr They are all transitional fossils. Every species was a complete species, nothing was trying to change into something else.

What are you looking for? Animals with half a backbone, they have those.

Fish with legs, they have those.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"What are you looking for? Animals with half a backbone,"

Im looking for a series of fossils showing the gradual step by step appearance of cambrian animals from simpler forms. I claimed that this did not exists. You claimed that the transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion were all there. Where are they then? Why did most of the modern phyla appear in a mere 10MY. Where are the fossil branches that led to this geologically abrupt diversification of life?

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr series of fossils showing the gradual step by step appearance of cambrian animals from simpler forms.

WHY? Because you don't think paleontologists can produce them and you can prove evolution wrong.

Dream ON.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"WHY? Because you don't think paleontologists can produce them "

I'm asking because you said that YOU could produce the fossil evidence! We have had 150 years of well funded fossil hunting by Darwinists palaeontologists who were desperate to make a name for themselves. Where on earth is all the evidence for the existence of a gradual evolutionary progression of forms up to the Cambrian phyla? If you can't produce it, why do you believe that it must be there?

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr Please show me how the Cambrian Period supports ID.

There are fossils 520 million years old, how does that fit your bible flood story.

What is the name of the flood mud layer with all the fossils mixed together?

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

Please show me how the Cambrian Period supports ID.

Non intelligent processes need to work slowly and gradually, if they are to be believed. Only intelligent agents can assemble masses of new complexity in short periods. The sudden appearance of 30 never before seen phyla during a 10MY window after 3 billion years of non evolution is the most un-Darwinian scenario imaginable.

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr ''Non intelligent processes need to work slowly and gradually''

WRONG Are movements along fault lines ''slow and gradual' or do the make earthquakes?

All the animals of the world did not evolve in 10 MY, the PHYLA did.

Life got to a point where it ''took off'' is that too hard to understand.

It happened. If we don't know why, it doesn't make it go away.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"WRONG Are movements along fault lines ''slow and gradual' or do the make earthquakes?"

Let me spell this out. Non intelligent processes that build complex adaptions, such as wings and eyes need to work slowly and gradually'.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"If we don't know why, it doesn't make it go away."

That's fine. But Darwinists can no longer pretend to shed evolutionary light on this bizzare evidence. They can no longer claim to be able to explain the origin of species in terms of a blind and purposeless process. They should admit their failure, give up their research grants and let ID have a try at explaining the Cambrian explosion!

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr You are correct, Darwinist's were wrong, we have know they were wrong about ''slow and gradual'' for 100 years. Darwin was wrong about gradual, his is dead.

We now know, Evolution happened in starts and stops and at different speeds. Science advances.

It has been confirmed with DNA, which shows how life is connected to all life.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"We now know, Evolution happened in starts and stops and at different speeds. Science advances."

If by "evolution", you mean a blind, purposeless, non-intelligent process, then such a process would have to occur slowly and gradually......unless you can come up with a very good reason why it should not. Why would an undirected process produce virtually no novelty for more than 3 billion years, and then go into overdrive, by producing hundreds of millions of new genetic instructions?

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr If by "evolution", you mean a blind, purposeless, non-intelligent process"

NO, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

.

Evolution was not 'smooth' because the earth's history is not smooth. There were 5 major mass extinctions that wiped out most life on earth. Yes, 5 times.

.

Evolution went into overdrive when single celled animals became multi-celled and made all the Phyla and then all the Classes and then the Families and then all the species.

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr I told you Darwin was wrong about ''slow and grandual'' and you still argue, taking his side so you can prove him wrong. Proving Darwin wrong is 150 years behind the times. Darwin's theory has changed, proving the theory wrong means you need to come up with a new theory as to how evolution, the process, happened. It has been proven it did happen.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"you still argue, taking his side so you can prove him wrong."

I understand you perfectly. Darwin was wrong when he predicted that many transitional forms would be found to give a gradual run-up to the Cambrian phyla. But he was right to insists that his theory should be refuted if such finely graded intermediates were not found. He understood that clear signes of rapid change was evidence that something esle was going on. rapid changes require intelligent input.

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr No, Darwin was right, we have found many transitional fossils, dinosaurs with feathers, fish with legs. You just want to see exactly what happened for 10 million years out of 700 million. Look at the big picture. Stop looking for a gap, there will always be gaps. So what, evolution is still seen in the fossil record.

.

'' rapid changes require intelligent input.''

So you think Allah made the Cambrian Explsion?!?

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"You just want to see exactly what happened for 10 million years out of 700 million."

Thats rich! After more than 3 billion years of non-evolution, the ten million year window of the Cambrian explosion is where all the amazing novelty just appears. I am clearly looking at the big picture, and thats why I find the non-intelligent Darwinian explanation to be so obviously wrong.

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr

WATCH

.

Evolution of Man , The Fossils that Supposedly Dont exist, according to creationists...

.

And you will see the fossils you can't seem to find. Pictured are transitional fossils, fish with necks, etc. You won't know why they are important, but they fill the gaps. search watch learn

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"WATCH..The Fossils that Supposedly Dont exist, according to creationists."

I am not arguing the creationist position. I am arguing that the fossils that we DO know exists paint a picture that amounts to the most un-Darwinian scenario imaginable. I am not looking for a few wishful examples such as "fish with necks" where Darwinists impose their own interpretations on the data. I am looking for a gradual sequence of fossils going from simple bacteria up to the 30 or so Cambrian phyla

[gregrutz]

The fossils are layered like this:

In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,

above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils

and dinosaur fossils.

No human fossils are found in any of these layers.

No dating methods used

Look at the whole picture.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"So you think Allah made the Cambrian Explsion?!?"

The evidence suggests some kind of intelligence was involved, although the evidence cannot go further than that to tell us who or what did the designing. Science is about following the evidence, right? It's about leaving behind our personal hangups and dislikes, and going with whatever the best explanation is, right? We shouldn't say: " I just don't like that answer, so I am going to reject it", right?



[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr ''whatever the best explanation is''

And you think, 'It was designed but cannot go further than that to tell us who or what did the designing,'' is the really good answer?

You think, ''cannot go further'' answers all the questions?

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"You think, ''cannot go further'' answers all the questions?"

You are free to speculate on the nature of the designing intelligence if you wish, but that would take you out of empirical science and into theology and philosophy

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr you can't say the supernatual did it but we can't go there.

you fool no one, we know you mean Allah did it. or Ra or some god

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr ID is not science, you are already into theology, why lie about it.

[gregrutz]

The fossils are layered like this:

In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,

above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils

and dinosaur fossils.

No human fossils are found in any of these layers.

No dating methods used

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"Fish with legs"

30 to 40 new animal phyla appear abruptly, in the fossil record around 530MY'rs ago. Before that, we have nothing but tiny single celled organisms and a few multicellular organisms. You offer me fish with legs!

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr You want to know why evolution happened when it did ?!?

We call the period when most of the Phyla evolved, the Cambrian Period, if it would have happened sooner or later, it would still be the Cambrian Period.

YES, life was single celled for million of years. What is your point?

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"YES, life was single celled for million of years. What is your point?"

Why didn't life evolve for three billion years? Why did single celled organisms remain single celled organisms for 3 billion years? Why were they not busy evolving like crazy, in order to exploit the vast spectrum of available ecological niches during the preCambrian? Why did evolution suddenly go into overdrive during the Cambrian explosion (5 to 10 million years duration) after 3 billion years of doing nothing?

[gregrutz]

''Why didn't life evolve for three billion years?'' Why?

''Why did single celled organisms remain single celled organisms for 3 billion years? ''

Why not? ''Why were they not busy evolving like crazy, in order to exploit the vast spectrum of available ecological niches during the preCambrian?''

Why? ''Why did evolution suddenly go into overdrive during the Cambrian explosion after 3 billion years of doing nothing?''

Why not?

IS EVOLUTION TO FAST OR TOO SLOW FOR YOU?

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"IS EVOLUTION TO FAST OR TOO SLOW FOR YOU?"

You have failed to explain why we get no evolution for 3 billion years, followed by an evolutionary big bang of around 10MY's in duration, in which most of the modern phyla appeared. When considering the fossil evidence, "evolution" isn't too fast or slow for me, but too fast AND to slow for a credible Darwinian account of how life appeared, over these two periods mentioned.

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr There was evolution for the first 3 billion years. Cells had to go from simple RNA in a bubble to complex cells with nuclei and mitocondria. It took a long time for the life on earth to make all the Oxygen in the air for the newer life forms which use it.

You are talking about something that happened over 500 million years ago. Sorry if science does not have enough details for you. Why don't you look at the big picture.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregr

"RNA in a bubble to complex cell"

Ha Ha Scientists have experimented with trimming down cells to the bare essentials. Even the simplest self replicating cells require most of the basic cellular machinery to replicate. e.g. they need the full DNA and DNA processing machinery. Where did you get the RNA in a bubble from? BTW, scientists believe that the earliest lifeforms are 3.8 billion year old blue/green algae, that's very similar to todays BG algae. Cells were fully formed by this stage

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"Pre- Cambrian > soft bodied small marine creatures"

Given that many well preserved fossils of soft bodied creatures have been discovered, this excuse (i.e. the transitional ancestors to the Cambrian explosion existed, but they weren't preserved because they were soft bodied) does not hold. Tiny soft bodied sponge embrios are frequently found with perfect preservation in preCambrian strata. Where on earth are all the missing preCambrian transition hiding? WOW!

[gregrutz]

@IDtaksovr YES, the pre-Cambrian fossils do exist, so there is no gap.

First pre-Cambiran animals evolved.

Then the Cambrian animals evolved.

What don't you understand?

They are all transition fossils, none exist today.

99% of all species that ever lived on earth are extinct.

[IDtaksovr]

@gregrutz

"YES, the pre-Cambrian fossils do exist, so there is no gap."

Why does Richard Dawkins say, in reference to the Cambrian animals: "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."(The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229) ...

I know that you believe these fossils exists, but where can I see fossil examples of this truly emormous chain of preCambrian transitional forms? You know, the ones that came after three billion years of single celled non evolution.

[livisda]

fossils can indicate at best that those organisms were alive at some point then they died and catastrophically burried deep in the earth where pressure and temperature allows fossilization. anything dying on the land surface is quickly being decomposed, eaten, no fossilization possible. any more beyond this point is speculation, and if taken as a fact w/o proven and repeated experimentation it is no better than blind belief!

[wildreams]

The fossil record indicates that periodically new(as in different and later) species appear periodically usually with only slight difference with known predecessors (fossils can be dated by different method independently) living in the same region.

We can easily deduce that the new species are the decedent of the earlier extinct species or we can assume they all appear out of nowhere as if separately "created" by an unknown entity at a separate time.

[wildreams]

We usually make the deduction that require less assumption and logical leap, therefore, scientist choose the formal.

Today, after we witness mutation and evolution happen before our very eyes, this deduction seems ever more plausible.

[explodingtoastt]

you rock mr mcdowell! (:

Molly

[charadester]

Dembski says some of the concepts of ID are difficult to grasp, but he's 'trained as an acedemic', so he needs a layman like McDowell to 'bring it home' to the kids. Sounds like self-professed academic intellectualism, the same bucket into which he scathingly lumps all evolutionary biologists. Intelligent design tries to squelch the facts of evolution using a thinly veiled version of creationism. They're champing with hate for the real truth seekers.

[charadester]

These men are terrified that the data supporting evolution will peel away the facade of their conspiracy and end their hopes for a totalitarian Christian theocracy. If you think that the rise to power of these men will result in a loving, God-centered, peaceful society, think again. There has never been a peaceful theocracy. All were wrought with persecution of all who opposed the power of the church. Beware the brutal reign of these zealots.

[Galactu5]

I'm crying here. Religion will grasp at anything to keep it going.

[frost122585]

Please don't waste our time... excuse me, i mean your time, adding comments about our hopeless theory of ID. We all know the universe came out of nothing and was not designed because a scientist said so. We also know that Obama is the closest thing to a perfect God we have because the news said so.

[Galactu5]

Good point! Wasting my time is a bad idea. ID will implode on it's own so why bother pointing out it's shortcomings.

Thanks!...

[frost122585]

No problem. Any time!

[sofielein]

well, if that's what you believe, I respect it.

[finzfan92]

hmm.....I thought I was the only Sean McDowall......O wait, I am, I spell it with an 'a.'

Gotta go to Scottland to find another one!

[scicero1]

The important part he talks about it the scare tactic that was and is still used on everyone. You want to believe that when you die you go somewhere, people like this give an alternative. Therefore, you should and have to believe or you are alone.

Remember, the bible was created by multiple people who wanted to control others in the name of god. Scriptures that conflicted were left out. How can anything be verified

[hanzo138]

don't watch this video! ID is NOT religiously motivated at all! I swear!

[SemanticCentrifuge]

It must be true! He's got all kinds of statistics and stuff. What a freekin joke! In a classroom and enough statistics you can prove you don't even exist.

[SaviorOfLogic]

So they go after kids who are not asking for evidence, didn't Hitler do the same thing? (my grand-dad was in the Hitler youth, so I know what happens)

[ryanalan28]

The attempt to compare Christians to Hitler is a tired, old arguement that is effective and doesn't work. It makes the person trying to make the comparison look like a fool and discounts anything he/she says. Try again.

[SaviorOfLogic]

I'm talking about ID proponents, not Christians. All I'm saying is that the guy said that he goes after kids who haven't made up their mind (and are vulnerable), and teaches them wrong ideas. I don't care who you tell you're kids to pray to, as long as you don't discredit the scientific method (as this guy does). The reason is that then they will be almost incapable of questioning their parents ideas.

Intelligent design is nonsense as the windpipe and oesophagus are too close (choking).

[bitterchew]

Can someone please tell me where are all the transitional fossils showing progression up the evolutonary ladder. They should be everywhere. Did some creationist travel the world over and steal them all?

[SemanticCentrifuge]

Dude, its called a horse. Check into it.

[wildreams]

There are plenty of transitional fossils, check up horse and whale evolution, dinosaur evolution to birds etc this list is not exhaustive, just showed the more common ones that always showed up in creation/evolution debate.

[wildreams]

For evolution observed in action: domestication(eg. Tame Silver Fox: a 50years experiment of the domestication of silver fox into a dog like creature) and other experimental evolution (E. coli long-term evolution experiment, begun in 1988, still being conducted and updated, in 2008, E.coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy, 1st time after 20 years, 33,127 generations.)

[IDtaksovr]

wildreams

These are examples of evolution in your

wild(estd)reams. The first is an example of artificial selection or intelligent design. Even Darwin did not claim that intelligent domestic breeding was the same as unguided natural selection. You second is an example of microevolution (E.coli evolves in to well, Ecoli).

[wildreams]

Yea, the inability to take in external citrate was one of the "defining characteristic" of Ecoli(read it uo). We ought to call it a different name by now, thanks for pointing it out.

[IDtaksovr]

wildreams

Was the new strain unable to breed with the parental type? Is the mutant strain said to be a new species? How do the antibiotic resistant bacteria compete with the wild strain, when the antibiotic is removed? Do they get out competed and disappear?. Do a search under fitness cost E. Coli and you will find that this is merely the uncontroversial microevolution. It is also a poor example of an improvement in fitness.

[wildreams]

er... im sorry E coli is a prokaryote which does NOT undergo sexual reproduction. So breeding with the parent type is never an option.

Is the mutant strain "said" to be a new "species"? As you rightfully pointed out, it ought to, but I'm not sure if they have "officially" renamed it.

There is no antibiotic involved.

They did not get out compete.

Nothing about fitness, it is the ability to ingest citrate. Do a search on E-coli long term experiment.

[IDtaksovr]

wildreams

Where did I say breeding with the parent type? I said if you mix a sample of the mutated strain with the parental strain (i.e. in the same test-tube). I would expect that in the absence of citrate, the citrate metabolising strain will quickly be out-competed by the wild type. As a rule, mutants never reproduce as rapidly as the original strain, and disappear once the antibiotic (or citrate food source in this case) is removed. Have you looked up fitness cost yet?

[wildreams]

"Was the new strain unable to breed with the parental type?" <--There is where u said it.

O told u they did not get out compete because they are still thriving in the controlled environment. But of course, it is possible to put it in another controlled environment where it could get out compete. The fact that the fittest survive from what you are implying is the very nature of Evolution.

Whose rule?

Antibiotic does not curb evolution.

Fitness cost? Not an issue here.

[IDtaksovr]

Sorry. I meant "compete", not "breed".

Once the mutant strain leave the controlled environment, they get out competed by the parental strain and quickly dissapear due to natural selection. Natural selection within a species is ok and has been observed. But in this case, only the contrived lab environment allows the mutant to persist

This problem plagues nearly all these experiments. In general, mutations are nearly always fatal to the organism, and those that are not tend not to do anything

[wildreams]

Really? Then prove it your point. Experimentally. If I believe natural selection can work both ways, as long as the environment allows. So, it doesn't make any sense to me why wouldn't a mutant be any less likely to survive in an environment that favours it's survival, simply because it is a "mutant".

In fact, every living thing is by definition a "mutant" of their parent in one way or another, unless it is a clone. I don't believe in a perfect clone either.

[IDtaksovr]

There is no logical reason why mutants that can survive in special conditions, perform less well against the parent when returned to the natural environment. This is an EXPERIMENTAL FINDING. Search under "fitness cost", and you will see what I mean. In nearly all cases where a mutated specimen is found to perform better in an artificial environment against the parent, it performs relatively poorly compared to the parental strain, when returned to the wild, and soon dissappears.

[wildreams]

There is nothing differentiating a "mutant" from a "non-mutant" ever decendent is a mutant from their parent in one way or another. Putting any species in a radically new environment which they are unable to adapt in time will cause them to perish.

"Mutant" or none "mutant".

[IDtaksovr]

wildreams

There is no evidence to support the claim that major transitions can occur in small, beneficial, randomly occurring , micro mutations. This is an article of faith. It's the "Darwinian creed".

Have you researched "fitness cost" yet?

[wildreams]

I'm not sure what u mean by "no evidence" when there are so many supporting evidence that independently confirm again and again the predictions of evolution. Example, Feathered dinosaurs, vestigial organs, Hedylepta(the native Hawaiian butterfly that only feeds on banana where banana was only brought onto the island 1000years ago), the date and location where the transition fossils are found(dinosaur or mamalian fossils). All indicated a gradual progress in the evolutionary tree.

[wildreams]

Either that, or you would have to make a larger logical leap that all the different species are separately "designed" by an unknown entity.

Fitness cost is completely irrelevant. It refers to the cost of developing a feature(say resistance to antibiotic) to the health of the bacteria, without the selective pressure imposed. It too demonstrates natural selection. In reality, antibiotic does not appear and disappear abruptly. Therefore, resistance developed through mutation persists.

[wildreams]

Besides broader evidence that indicates the trend of evolution. More details have also been observed. Visit AronRa's channel for more insights on this issue.

[IDtaksovr]

wildreams

Fitness cost is not irrelevant. It is crucial. The point is that when the antibiotic is removed, or when the artificial food source is removed, the mutants get wiped out by natural selection within a few generations i.e. no net evolution. Natural is conservative.

Far from being the "engine of evolution", natural selection works to preserve the original organism. Mutants may arise from time to time, in extreme lab environments, but they cannot survive in the wild.

[IDtaksovr]

wildreams

It depends how you define "evolution". You need to tell me exactly what you understand by evolution, or we will be talking at cross purposes.

Darwinism is short for the modern theory of evolution by random mutation coupled with natural selection (also called "neo-Darwinian evolution" or "NDE"). "evolution" can mean many other things, and apply to many different theories. Before I discuss the problems with the examples you gage, can we have YOUR definition of "evolution"

[wildreams]

Defining "evolution" is not easy, it is a theory with many important key elements. But wikipedia does it well:

The "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species..

[wildreams]

The similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence."

[livisda]

well.. the other way to look at it is that organisms use similar enzymes, proteins, minerals, vitamins and of course oxygen, water and so forth for survival and functions and live on the same planet. so that is why they are similar

[wildreams]

The reason they used similar nutrients and source of energy was a result of their common origins.

The fact that they used similar nutrients or energy source shows that they are similar but not necessarily share a common origin.

We deduce that they had a common origin by tracing the fossil record.

[livisda]

well.. deducing is not always accurate because we can't prove those fossils had any offsprings that actually survived, let alone to produce new species.

[kungfumama]

@livisda  rofl...how do fossils have offspring?!! ^_^

[assfuckingpoopcock]

what science...did anyone hear him say...that "we had to dumb it down"...their making this shit up...just like the bible....it's fucking make believe..

[SaviorOfLogic]

No, thats an insult, cos things like Harry Potter and Lord Of the Rings are beneficial, as they tell people to be brave and honourable, plus they were written by peple who were smarter than cavemen.

[KierenMan]

"bring the science and the theology together"

*shakes head*

[Stagerdr]

No,  this John Ross ;)

[Stagerdr]

John Ross: Title: Camille and Henry Dreyfus Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, (b. 1926)

Education: B.S., 1948, Queens College; Ph.D., 1951, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Awards: National Academy of Science, 1976; Irving Langmuir Award in Chemical Physics, American Chemical Society, 1992; Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching, Stanford University, 1992-93; National Medal of Science, 1999; Peter Debye Award in Physical Chemistry, American Chemical Society, 2001;

[Stagerdr]

Principal Research Interests

We are interested in experimental and theoretical investigations in new approaches to the determination of complex reaction mechanisms; the formation of the thermodynamics and statistical mechanics of systems far from equilibrium; the chemical implementation of digital and parallel computers, and application of these studies to biological reaction mechanisms.

[Stagerdr]

WTF? You're bright-- You can do better than this.

[Stagerdr]

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn't apply to open systems. But this is false.

[Stagerdr]

Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

... there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ... There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.

[Stagerdr]

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won't make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy.

[Stagerdr]

It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. (Ross)

[Stagerdr]

For example, Gould states, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen J. The Pandas Thumb, 1980, p. 181.)

[Stagerdr]

And he's one of your most lauded spokesman.

M.D.=scientist.

Billions of bacteria replicating every second, no new species ever reported.

No explanation for "origin of species". Do you grant a "creator" If so, ID not so unreasonable.

2nd law of thermodynamics argues against speciation based on stochastic process. (entropy)

A few things to think about, and I don't even think the earth is flat.

[Stagerdr]

Why all this vituperation from the Darwinists? What is so threatening? As a scientist and M.D., I see (as do many non-bible beaters) legitimate holes, big ones, in the evolutionary theory. Ask Stephen J.Gould, RIP. Are we just supposed shut up and accept it as dogma or ask reasonable questions like where is the evidence?

[eupraxsophy1986]

McDowell has it spot on when he conflates creation and design.

[DaveGrossmanSoloBass]

What does Intelligent Design have to do with Christianity? How would evidence of design and a designer lead one to conclude that it was the Biblical God that did the designing as opposed to any of the 3000+ other gods? Why does it have to be a personal god that was the designer? It could very well be some non-deity (or non-deities) who happens to have the technology to create a universe.

[horsie111]

Sometimes atheists want it both ways: One minute it's all about promoting Christianity, the next it's got nothing to do with the God of the Bible...

Dembski is concerned with scientific arguments, not promoting a particular religion; and if existing materialistic explanations for life are shown, scientifically, to be inadequate then it's for people to continue seeking the truth where they will. At the very least, one shouldn't pretend that the search is over, because what then would one learn?

[DaveGrossmanSoloBass]

You mean that theists want it both ways. They're the ones constantly changing their story about what ID is and what it isn't.

Dembski is concerned with justifying his own religious beliefs and supporting his livelihood which is currently based on his religion and his status as one of the leading ID proponents.

Check out randyhelzerman's channel for an in-depth debunking of Dembski.

...

[DaveGrossmanSoloBass]

There is no reason to bring in an unknown intelligent force into science when it is not required. If the evidence leads science to this conclusion then it it will be addressed. As of yet, there is no credible evidence to support intelligent design or anything paranormal or supernatural.

People like Dembski are dishonest. Not only to the public but to themselves. They live in a state of denial. They simply cannot and will not accept the idea that their "God" most likely does not exist.

[timcol49]

"Dembski is concerned with scientific arguments, not promoting a particular religion". Oh really?

Quotes from Dembski: " believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

and...

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

"Not promoting a particular religion" - I don't think so...

[timcol49]

Since when was science all "about reaching the young people" And why does Dembski need an evangelist to help spread the message of ID? Clearly, this book is little more than a religious polemic, yet ID is supposed to be an 'alternative scientific theory'. Who are they kidding?

[sergiomats]

I love it when Christians stand up for science, and show that there is no conflict between true science and the Bible.

Good work, guys!

[robocopnz]

Great work guys!!!