Lady - I would like to debate. In fact I've received many compliments on my hard yet fast style of debating. Sometimes I debate many times a day, but this can leave one somewhat drained. Of course I have built up a solid stamina being a Master debater. Master debaters such as myself are always looking for something stimulating to get us going. Just watch out, because when I Master debate, I come on all over the place and I come on hard!!
ANYONE: If you see no reply to transatlantic & possibly some other posters who come on this string - he has become one of several folk who follow me (& others) around YT with personal insults, name calling, accusations of lying and sometimes worse. I am happy to debate with those who are civil & objective, i.e. where true debate is possible. Only.
Cont. After all, each is usesless w/o the other, in fact useless until both are fully functional & fully attached. (But if you can show that is not true be sure and provide real data.) Then there's the egg. 4) Why & how would evo prepare an egg over aeons to be ready for the sperm to hit it before the sperm & whip (and of course the entire thing) are fully connected and fully functional? You're looking at irreducible complexity. Evo only gives you dataless theories tha defy science & logic.
@Desertphile I just gave you an example, the sperm with its flagellar motor and whip and the egg it has to be implanted into. Did you see all my posts that I left today? There are 3 preceding this one. There are more Qs for you to answer within them.
@Desertphile Is this a game? I gave you an example of irreducible complexity. I;ve given this ex. to quite a few evo fans on the net before. All of them understood it was my ex. of i.c. so I am puzzled byyour repeated request. There is 0 way that evolution could synchronously build a rotary motor along with the whip it must move, and along with the egg that is going to be its eventual target, while all are "emerging" & useless in the aeons before completion. Evo can't prepare for the future.
There are plenty of ways to explain how a molecular structure is what it is today. if you understand evolution. Ken Miller explained that quite well at the Dover trial. If you have any sort of evidence to oppose his claims, why didn't you presented them at the Dover trial?
"useless"... there are fish deep in the ocean, with no eyes, but they have the eye sockets. you can't explain such phenotype, without understanding evolutin theory.
This whole debate is so heavily politicised. Behe raises some difficulties for advocates of Darwinian evolution. Darwin saw the cell as the unit of life, had he known the complexity within how would it have altered his published work?
@PLScotland ; Behe stated that Darwinian evolution is correct. He just also claimed he believes the gods help evolution along now and then--- something he cannot produce evidence for.
@Desertphile Here is how I have seen Miller "refuting" examples Behe gives of intelligent design. 1st he take Behe's mousetrap & then mangles it. He then asks us to just accept his word for it that the trap will still catch "really stupid" mice. Do we see any dead mice? Of course not. Did the engineers for the trap put in useless parts? When he keeps mangling the trap more & its nothing but a coiled spring and we're supposed to believe it kills mice, well, it's embarrasing. Cont.
@Desertphile Cont. And oh yeal, all the while he's showing how the mangled mousetrap is disproving intelligent design, he's using those parts to "catch" mice that were made by i.d.! Then there is his "refutation" of our blood clotting mechanism. Does he show us any humans functioning fine w/o all the parts Behe described? No! We're told dolphins & puffer fish don't need all those parts and we are then supposed to believe we don't need all of ours, therefore. It's absurd & unscientific.
@Desertphile True or false: 1) Miller mangled a mousetrap & said w/0 evidence that it would kill "stupid: mice" then said that even the coil would catch mice. He said this refuted Behe's ex. of mousetrap irreducible complexiity..The parts that supposedly killed the invisible mice all came from man made technology with intelligent design. 2. Miller used the ex. of a dolphin & puffer fish to "disprove" Behe's i.c. ex. of human blood clotting? I understand fine. All True on answers.
@Desertphile I haven't misunderstood him. True or false he showed us a mangled mousetrap & told us it would kill "really stupid mice" with (as usual for evolutioin) 0 evidence, & said that refuted Behe's case? T of F he tries to get us to believe that even the spring will kill mice. T or F in each case the trap parts killing the invisible mice are all from intelligent design. T or F he "refuted" the irreducible complexity of Behe's HUMAN blood clotting mechanism by switching to marine animals?
@LoricaLady ; That isn't how evolution works. Mice traps are always mice traps; modified mice traps can do other things than trap mice. That's the whole swatting point.
@Desertphile If a "modified mouse traps can do other things than trap mice" what are they? Something not absurd - like a tie clip - would be nice. Afterall, using my cellphone for a tie clip no more shows it wasn't intelligently designed than using a mousetrap for a tie clip shows it wasn't intelligently designed. In fact the mechanism that holds the tie clip was...intelligently designed! You evaded my Qs and they were valid. Give me 1 evo example that is testable, observable & repeatable.
@LoricaLady ; Ah, so you know the answer already, but you refuse to accept it. Well, that's your problem. Meanwhile, step forward and be the first on the planet to point to anything that is "irreducibly complex." Good luck with that.
@Desertphile So far you've evaded all my Qs. However I will not evade yours. All of life, from the cellular level on up, is irreducibly complex. However, I will start with something ultra simple. You will not be able to answer the Qs I ask about it either. Here we go. A sperm cell. It has a rotary motor below a whip. It has to get to a target outside of its own body, to another body of a different sex. Please attempt to answer these Qs.:
"all of life...is IC". which is a pure lie. There are humans with 3 chamber hearts, 3 kidneys, two pancreas,...ergo...variety disproves IC. There is variety to the "rotary motor" of the sperm cell, there are even sperm cells that have more than one "rotary motor". the point here is that there is no "rotary motor" at all. There is a structure formed by molecules. it's chemistry, not machinery.
Evolution explains how such structures evolved by looking to the diversity and the genes.
@Desertphile Cont. ...While they are, figuratively speaking, just nubs of stubs, not yet even connected, why and how could evolution drive them to completion? 2) What possible use or "co-option" as Miller & other claim (as usual based on theoretical "millions of years" ago unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable dataless assumptions) could they have during the aeons before they are fully formed and fully connected? 3) Why & how would evo drive them to completion syn-chron-ous-ly? Cont
2) again: observable, testable and repeatable: anyone trying to explain Plant speciation, with the observed transitional forms across the ages, plus the clear change of a population of individuals into new distict populations, clearly show evolution.
Where are the "assumptions"?
3) what "completion"? when there is variety? you can't even claim a "point of reference". to sustain your position of "IC". point us to one single human that is an example of what defines ALL human beings.
What is bizarre is that Ken Miller is a strong Roman Catholic.... He doesn't seem to understand that evolution is in conflict with a majority of the bible. I'm thinking that Ken Miller is keeping his Roman Catholic belief system on hand as a security just in case. You'd think Ken Miller would just be a pantheist or similar.
Hi Desertphile. Yea, for Dr. Ken Miller! There are a lot of us christians who know naturalistic evolution is the reality. The "God of the gaps arguments" damage scientific progress. These "creationists" try to turn ignorance into a virtue. Another good video. Tom
I wonder if the maker of the video realizes that the number Behe uses (10 to the 20th power cells to achieve malarial resistance) actually comes from a paper by Nicholas White entitled, "Antimalarial drug resistance" published in 2004, and is not a calculation of his own?
First off, the universe was designed at the beggining of time. How could we observe something being created if, when things were created, human's didn't even have a writing system?
It's very true that a snowflake looks designed. The reason this is so is that the laws of physics were designed that way when the universe was created.
First, please do not make a "argumentum ad ignorantiam" or argument from ignorance statement. Just because you and even scientist are not sure yet does not mean God did it.
The big bang theory traces back the expanding universe to a common starting point. What existed before? We are not sure. What caused the "bang" to happen, we don't know.
Honestly admitting ignorance in the attempt to gain knowledge does not give credibility to the unsupported hypothesis "God did it". Ok?
Ok, I'm sorry. I'll keep God out of the picture, but I will still argue my beliefs.
Something interesting I've noticed in a lot of very respected science magazines is that people are starting to move AWAY from the bog bang and are using a new theory called the big bounce. If the general scientific community is leaving the bang behind, it would be wise for you to do so too, am I correct?
If the evidence backs it up yes. If the science community finds new evidence, comes up with new or modified theories that better fit the facts or in evidence of new facts, then yes my view would change as well.
The failure to do so would mean that we would still believe in alchemy, an earth centered universe and that sickness is caused by evil spirits.
The best example of science changing I've heard, besides evolutionary theory, is the theory of plate tectonics.
No the theory of plate tectonics. This theory incorporated the theory of continental drift and seafloor spreading and had to stand up to testing and new information along the way.
My point is that no theory comes about and is simply accepted without study, testing and incorporating new information along the way. Predictions have to be viable testable for a theory to be useful.
but we know of no example of SC that exists minus intelligence as the main roll. But the reason why it is a good theory is that Intelligence orders and arranges thigns all the time. So it is a presntly acting cause and mechanism. Read the books and the papers. And no you dont understand the debate or the theory of evolution in its current state.
What is a good theory? Please provide a short precis of the theory, the principles it embodies, the observations it explains, and how its hypotheses are independently verifiable.
The theory of ID states that certain key features in the world can be positively identified as design via an intelligence. the principles it embodies,
That natural selection and random variation alone cannot produce specified complexity. the observations it explains,
« The theory of ID states that certain key features in the world can be positively identified as design via an intelligence. »
... How is this a theory? What's its explanatory power? What its predictive power?
« All examples of specified complexity »
Define 'specified complexity'. Explain what 'specified' means in this context. Explain how the theory *explains* these observations - how causes [A] lead to observations [B].
Read the books. I have already answered these questions. Complexity has to do with the universal probability bound- specification is an arbitraily matchable pattern. Read the books! If you actaully knew anything at all about the theory of ID you would already know what it says about these key terms. You have proven your ignorance. But I am sure you will keep repeating your mantra. There's a testible prediction!
« Complexity has to do with the universal probability bound- specification is an arbitraily matchable pattern. »
This means nothing to me. In English please. Use more than one comment if needs be. Otherwise, give me a reference to a document where I can find the exact definition of specified complexity.
I naed a tone. Go to The Discorver Institute has tons of articles. The books you need to read are The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Also The Design Revolution. There will will get a therough understanding of specified complextity is and how the universal probability bound relates. It take 700 pages to lay this out I cant explain it al here. Has to do with various statistical modes and how they can be applied to objects and subjests like life in biology from a deisgn detection perspective.
Calling me a creationist is just a slur and not an argument. That shows intellectual dishonesty and decadence on your part. Your side says this because you lack the support of logic, rationality, reason and fact. Borel's work as been respected and used in support of ID and Dembski has made it clear where his argument stands- that probability is an absolutely necessary metric for a rational description and understanding of evolution and its nature. Whether Borel agrees or not is not an issue.
Where did I call you a creationist? I said you were using a creationist version of a layman's explanation that Borel used in a book he wrote.
So, you are actually being dishonest by shifting the argument from the data you presented to some kind of "me vs them" argument.
Borel in his book stated that his work doesn't apply equally to evolution and the purely mathematical chance based on a single organism's chance of mutating? Do you understand that?
Now if you would like me to explain why ID is simply creationism in a lab coat, I will. I can point to logical problems, scientific problems and legal problems that all make a clear case that ID is the latest version of creationism.
Ok but to bring up creationism is such a small and limited forum to be suggests an implied importance in the "creationist" label. That means to me that you were bringing it up unnecessarily and not by accident but to imply or taint my argument as primarily one of creationism by associating to with creationism. If this is not what you meant to do I am sorry for jumping on that but the ad hominem red herring attack of conflating ID with creationism is used all the time by ID's opposition,
On Borel, it should be understood that the theory of ID goes beyond his work and actually focuses on the statistical theorems of David Wolpert. His work on NFl theorems and search logarithms are the real mathematical arguments of ID.
Frost, Borel was not involved with the ID movement, but rather ID folks take his rule of thumb discussion of odds and apply them to evolution while ignoring his statement, in his own book, that to do so is incorrect.
Could you please cite a study that relates to the statistical odds against evolution happening in a specific or general way?
I know but as I said his work has been built upon by IDists and plenty of others. I sent you a paper laying out much of the work- there obviously has not been many "studies" because ID's work is relatively new and has been hindered by those refusing to read for example the work I just sent you.
The commentator says Behe screwed up the math because he extrapolated backwards- but he did not extrapolate backwards. He extrapolated forwards from the past. What Behe wrote in his book is correct.
No, the ID cult nuts are not doing any "work" on the claim: they said so in the Dover Area School Board trial, and the Discovery Institute Church said nobody is doing any work on the claim.
Also, Behe admitted he got the math wrong, and also admitted his idiotic extrapolation was wrong--- he made the same mistakes a ten-year-old makes. Behe also accepts the fact that evolution occurred and occurs.
and how its hypotheses are independently verifiable.
No hypothesis can be independently verified. In evolutionary theory you have verifications but they Are always linked to long sequences of phyla, history lines etc- However take the use of statistics to see if a person is faking their business figures. The fake figures will not line up with the natural environment + or the random chance. You conclude there is designed fraud. You just made a design inference.
I never said hypotheses cant be tested. You just proclaimed obsevations must and can be independetly varifiable but you didnt use any support. Shows weakness. You also changed from "hypotheses" being indeopendtly varifiable to "observations." Bait and switch tatic.
As for the other part, it might actually be above you.
"The inference of design rests entirely on the predicate that a designer exists."
No it relies on the premise that the design is there. What the desiger is - is a secondary question. You misrepresent understand and misrepresent the theory. Read the paper I listed and the books.
« No it relies on the premise that the design is there. »
Well, then where is this design of yours? And how do you intend to support the assertion of design? Where is thing that we would see if and only if design were true?
Read the paper. Specified comnplexity. BTW There is no way that one can say for sure X is designed. Its like me asking you to prove somthing is not designed. You cant prove an negative. Also there is the interesting possiblity thath things that dont look designed could be designed. A designer could design somthing and hide his effect. It is only the obvious design that ID appeals to.
No theory has independently verifiable evidence not general relativity- not Darwinian evolution, nothing. All theories rest on world view assumptions. Take for instance the claim of random mutations. Even Dawkins and the like will admit that chance cannot be the driver of evolutionary progression. These guys appeal to environment and fitness landscapes...
« No theory has independently verifiable evidence »
Muhah!? What the hell have scientists been going on about for all these years!? There's no such thing as independently verifiable evidence; science is a sham!
« Take for instance the claim of random mutations. »
Yes?
« Even Dawkins and the like will admit that chance cannot be the driver of evolutionary progression. »
Admit!? They're the one trying to make this point clear to YOU, my friend! YOU are the ones who keep claiming "evolution is random!" Get this through your head: a single mutation may be random, but mutations per se are a STATISTICAL occurance. Evolution as a process is the way nature filters the noise of mutations. NOT random.
We do not say evolution is random at all. We see it as design = non random and purposive. You make no sense and once again prove you dont understand the debate at all! IDists claim "random mutation" cannot be a driving force of evolved novelty because precisely what educated people know... evolution is not random or by chance- it is orderly and the clearest examples of specified complexity cannot be purchased within the framework of the neo Darwinian synthesis. This is getting monotonous.
What arranges this relationship? Let me help you there is none. So I guess again according to your unrealistic definition of a theory there is no evolutionary theory either because it is not well supported.
« IDists claim "random mutation" cannot be a driving force of evolved novelty »
Why not? Like I have tried to explain three times now, mutations are noise: a STATISTICAL phenomenon. Any SINGLE mutation may be random, but statistically, ALL possible variations on a certain theme WILL be produced. On top of that, evolution acts like a filter, taking random mutations as input, and producing a NON-random result.
Because evolution is not random. You are contradicting yourself. There is nothing outside of variatiion that can give you novalty. Variation via mutation and change is what is needed before natural selection can do its job. What desides or arranges or orders the sequence of the mutations and variations?
Design. Not randomness. There is no randomness all events causitive leading back to the first cause which has a structure. What determins its structure? We knoe intelligence can. We know...
Variation via mutation IS change. It's not the only mechanism of variation by the way. There's reproductive recombination, lateral gene transfer, etc.
« What desides or arranges or orders the sequence of the mutations and variations? »
Nothing. Chance, if anything. Mutations are like the noise on a tv-screen; any single dot may be random, but all together they are a statistical phenomenon.
Ok, so where does the chance that mutation and fitness landscapes meeting each other together just the order to produce novel design find its explanation? There is clear and present purposive organization in life. Even a lot of scientific atheists will admit as much- they will chalk it up to some unknown force or multi universes or what have you. There is no independent evidence of parallel universes though.. nor natural designing forces that are non-purposive.
« where does the chance that mutation and fitness landscapes meeting each other »
Like I said, mutations are a statistical occurance. Life is continually generating a plethora of variations, some of which are better suited to their environment than others. There IS NO coincidence about it. The probability of a variation occurring that is better adapted than the others is P=ONE.
Well then i guess its not a theory then according to your definition of a theory. Lok we are going in circles. The difference between ID and multiverse is we know intelligence is a presently acting cause of novel design. There is no multiverse anything though.
That's right. There is no scientific theory (theory as in 'well supported explanatory model') that contains the many-world hypothesis.
« The difference between ID and multiverse is... »
... that ID depends on the supernatural. Unless you are willing to claim that a *natural* entity is responsible for the creation of the universe, an entity that developed through *natural* processes.
Wrong. Design is natural it happens all the time and exists ubiquitously throughout our world.
A well "supported explanatory model" is not a quantitative definition. It is qualitative once again appealing to opinion and feelings. What I think is very well supported like the thesis laid out in No Free Lunch you can feel is not. Your definition is not adequate at all. Also where is the well supported model for how fitness landscapes and genetic variation match unprobabilistically?
« A well "supported explanatory model" is not a quantitative definition. It is qualitative once again appealing to opinion and feelings. »
It's a definition for the word 'theory' as used in 'the theory of relativity'. A theory explains observations; it provides a model from which future observations can be predicted, so that the model and the explanation can be tested.
For anyone who wants to know about what ID is really about go to designinference. com and go under the 2005 section to a paper called "Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence"
You will quickly realize that the media is lying when it conflates ID with creationism.
no go and read the books. Then you can have a real conversation about Bayesian vs Fisherian modes of probabilistic calculation which actually does indeed lead to some very interesting results for both sides (IDists and materialists). Start with The Design Inference then go to No Free Lunch. You have to understand some moderate math though and symbolic logic to read them.
Then you can debate people and say you know all about ID- but this time it will actually be true!
You still have not said ANY SPECIFIC THINGS that I've said that are false, and you STILL haven't answered those 3 questions that would define it as a theory...
that is to say nowhere in Darwin's black box, edge of evolution, No Free Lunch, The Design Inference- will you find any theory about "why" we are here. Only that you can tell we are here for "some" purpose. You guys are not interested in treating ID for what it is.. you just simply choose to straw man it because you hate the religous and poltical views of "most" (thouhg not all by far Steve Fuller is a leftist) of the people who support and advance it. Which makes you a hater.
"You guys are not interested in treating ID for what it is.. you just simply choose to straw man it because you hate the religous and poltical views of "most" (thouhg not all by far Steve Fuller is a leftist) of the people who support and advance it."
You're being ridiculous. I disapprove of ID because it has no scientific merit. You're the one attempting to bring religion and politics into this. If ID is science, why do politics and religion have to rush to its defense? Can't it stand alone?
It has and it does... you brought up dover trial and the question of "why" which you called religious... Are you fallowing your own comments?
No major ID publication has anything in it about the question of "why" which is connected to the expressed main thesis or theory of that publication. None of meyers papers, none of Dembski's books, None of Behe's, none of the privliged planet wirtings (which are about life's improbability not purpose) or videos. None. You are totally wrong. Face it.
*correction, obviously not "all mutations are lethal", this is the problem when I have to type out the message twice and get it wrong the second time. Most if not all mutations are deleterious, this has been experimentally verified.
"A lethal mutation is disposed of, all others are kept."
Yes, lethal to the organism itself and to the process of evolution. Considering that most if not all mutations occurring are lethal, there would be nothing for natural selection (the "driver" of evolution) to select from. Talk about the best get something for nothing schemed ever devised.
"Yes, lethal to the organism itself and to the process of evolution."
no, it is not lethal to the process of evolution. It is the essence of the process.
"Considering that most if not all mutations occurring are lethal"
Poppycock. Your information is wrong. The vast majority of mutations have no consequence at all. Even regarding coding section the overloaded codon base laughs at mutations and produces the exact same protein in many cases and close analogs in most others.
*phylogenesis was preprogrammed self-limiting terminating process similar to ontogenesis
*chance and natural selection played no role beyond producing varieties or sub-species
*natural selection acts as a conservative process that preserves the status quo, that is, until ENOUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS HAVE GATHERED UP TO FORCE A SPECIES INTO EXTINCTION
*evolution is long since terminated and we are the end result of that determined evolution
Yes I know that, however, it is all predicated on the NON-ACCUMULATION of mutation and the very silly presentation of lineage as single path when in reality bifurcation happens constantly. Mutations that accumulate on one branch are not the same mutation that build up on another. This doesn't just magically start happening once speciation occurs. It happens with each birth.
They do not all pile up one organism and make it expire and plbbbt there goes the species.
There are currently thousands of species going extinct annually. Natural Selection and random mutations has all the power to make that happen. The evidence is quite clear for degradation of the genome, this is the only thing that Darwinian Evolution was good for and will continue now as the creative stages of evolution have long since terminated.
Common descent and evolution I don't question. The mechanism is in question, if you weren't living in a box the whole time maybe you would have known that. Why don't you read it again and tell me how it supports Darwinian Evolution. When your done with that you can get back to me on when a dog becomes a non-dog.
copy before hitting "post comment" every comment every time.
I read his paper way back when you first mentioned it. I wrote to john on his blog about a serious flaw in his paper. He was so embarrassed he faked a cyber attack from me. How frakking lame can you get?
Maybe you can help me out with something. I have been called a creationist. Yet, I have never read the bible or cared much for it except some few parts. I'm also an IDer, does that make me a creationist? According to you, of course it does. Therefore I must not deny I'm a creationist much like you shouldn't deny your a Darwimp. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Now write that down!
Can I ask a rather irrelevant question? The hat thing, whats up with the Darwinists and those hats? Just asking politely here, I don't want to discuss the fairytale just want to know why the fairies wear them. Thnx!
(computational phylogenetics expert and he will explain you how genes prove that birds did evolve from reptiles)
You mean to tell me, that the only thing you have is how an evolutionist interprets the information within molecular Biology. Interpreted, from the standpoint of presupposing that evolution is fact. I have something thats not a matter of interpretation. Evolutionists insist that credibility is given to two opposing theories. The long time morphing, and the punctuated morphing. Even
Such methods might consist of e.g. locating identical pseudogenes in two genomes, with the same disabling mutations, and concluding that it proves common ancestry.
It is equivalent to locating two books where 99% of the text passages are identical (including typos) and making a wild conclusion that they are related, while ignoring the fact that it contradicts Jesus magic.
If you claim ID is science, I challenge you to give me an example of a testable hypotheses.
Example: Evolution says we are descendants of animals who were able to synthesize vitamin C, but we are not able to.
Then so we should, if evolution is correct, be able to look into our genome and locate a turned-off pseudogene which is homologous to the ancestral vitamin C gene.
This is 100% testable, accurate evolutionary hypotheses.
"jtoksa", (Parsimony means in this case that a theory which "explains" an unknown with an even bigger unknown, in this case a designer, is worse than a theory which doesn't)
That is not correct. Since the theory of evolution and what it postulates, "is" known. ID science, often presents scientific data which shows evolution to be implausible. Often evolutionists seek to explain or prove one unknown(evo itself, its validity unknown)with another unknown. Like claiming that birds emerged from
First of all there is no such thing as ID science. Id doesn't produce testable hypotheses, and it's not falsifiable, which means that it's not science. Period.
Secondly, the number of cases ID has shown evolution to be implausible is zero. If you think that is not the case, list some peer reviewed publications where ID shows evolution to be implausible.
I wasn't aware of that the democratic process (general consensus) had become part of the "scientific method". Here I was thinking that empiricism itself, was more like a dictatorship, establishing it's absolutes. Of course, its a good thing, since its the truth. Guess not huh? Seems fitting, it would go this way. Atheists always have had a problem with "absolute" truth. Seems the two are incompatible. Oh well, the things some will resort to in trying to...
"ID contains NOTHING observable, empirical or measurable."
Well, intelligent design doesn't disprove evolution. Though I think ID makes sense. Maybe not observably or experimentally but theoretically. At least until evolution can explain away the "apparent" design.
Okay so a great majority of mutations are neutral. And most of the time no information is added. Occasionally there's negative mutations or a little bit of information is lost. And on very rare occasions there's a positive mutation and a little bit of information in gained. At least that's what I heard. If we look at a "before and after" picture of a type of species there's not an obvious change after a thousand year maybe but after millions of years slow accumulations add up. Then ID is wrong??
Ofcourse ID makes sense observably, molecular machines, symbolic genetic code, error-minimization, error correction etc...This all happens in real-time, there is no denying ID. Only a design denier would deny something as obvious.
"Of course ID makes sense observably, molecular mach...."
No, Creationism does not "make sense." You will not find anything in the biosphere that was "designed." If you ever do, please let the Creationism cults like the Discovery Institute Church, and Behe, know.
As creationists like to point out we only see a pig come out of a pig and a dog come out of a dog. Those are all natural processes. So obviously nature is creating animals. Where's the evidence that someone created the first animal of each kind if each one we observe is created from each other and evolves to its habitat? Maybe someone created a whole different set of species that evolved into another set. How do you know?
Another thing that doesn't make sense with id is why is there so much universe hostile to life and the little life there is has a lot of flaws. For such a grand architect it seems like a disaster. Also, evolution accounts for most of the error-minimization, and other things that we are "designed to have" while explaining the heaps of evidence creationists ignore. Third, Somehow your positing a designer who is more complex yet somehow design doesn't apply to him? Is that called special pleading?
Lots doesn't make sense at the moment, LOTS! In fact, because ID has questioned the mechanism over Darwinian Evolution, because molecular biology is discovering marvels of engineering in biological systems which are not fit for biologists themselves, because everything in biology requires more then abstract and crude explanations, and because at a higher resolution there are millions upon millions of more missing links between molecular structures, there is a growing demanding for making sense
I'm not sure what missing links your referring to. I hope you're not trying to make an argument from ignorance like most creationists do. I'd be glad to see the evidence that shows the insufficiency of evolution as long as it is positive evidence against it. I mean that sincerely.
I have no time for crackpottery, evolution was as determined as ontogeny. The evidence speaks highly in favor of a front-loaded "prescribed" evolution. I suggest you look up the prescribed evolutionary hypothesis by John A. Davison.
I say 'paranoid' in jest of course. He didn't really think I'd hacked his blog site. I actually was semi-amused at the childish antics he resorted to in order to avoid answering my simple question. Although I'd rather he addressed it.
Have you been following me around like some kind of dog on a leash? Anyways, JAD didn't "address" your question because its already been addressed in his PEH. You simply ignore it all because like JAD say's, you were "prescribed" that way.
Darwinian Evolutionary Biologists constantly seek to fill in the gaps on the "tree of life",these constitute missing links, but I'm sure you already knew that. This is all fine and dandy,except when we decrease the scope by increasing the resolution of biological systems all the way up to molecular structures the multiplier increases proportionally by a magnitude that makes the crude notion of a "missing link" equal to millions of missing links required for that one "transformation".
Natural Selections only job was to prevent changes from occurring. Random Mutations works well within a species, after constant artificial selective pressure, a dog evidently remains a dog, yet it varies in size, weight, type etc..., all dogs can all still reproduce with any type in its class. That's all Darwinian Evolution was good for. The predictive power of evolution remains a catastrophe.
"Natural Selections only job was to prevent changes from occurring."
ho ho ho and what have YOU been smoking?
"Random Mutations works well within a species"
Yes, they certainly DO. And WTF do you think might actually have the frakking power to STOP that process? Where's the frakking info that the dog's DNA is checked against to make sure it hasn't strayed too far? And how is THAT kept from mutating?
Tell me now, when does a dog become a non-dog? Thanks for telling me that. There is an obvious control mechanism and that mechanism functions to regulate changes. When you regulate changes, your preventing change, thus reducing it. If you read the PEH then you might know about the mechanism.
"When you regulate changes, your preventing change"
This is not what happens in biology. Environments DO CHANGE. The size of the genome is variable. The content of the genome is variable. YOU never addressed the question I raised to John either. Remember? Regarding accumulation of point mutations?
Maybe I've misunderstood something. But wouldn't that mean that for every cell that is correctly copied, there would be another cell, incorrectly copied, or mutated?
Even the incomparable probabilities of a poker hand, are something which I'd doubt are 1 to 1. Wouldn't that mean that every other hand which one is dealt, would contain at least a pair? Of course, considering the discards and their replacements, would change the math. But even then?
Furthermore, my experience is that promoters of ID are almost always religiously motivated, rather than just promoting a scientific idea, as they sometimes quite transparently claim to be.
They reject an idea solely because it is not compatible with their world view, which makes truth a secondary consideration.
Of course, in their view, their religion is the truth, so they do not see it that way.
you are not talking about me - the guy you are supposedly having a converastion with. As for promoters of ID, would you include agnostic David Berlinski?
Atheists have been by and large responsible for the bloodiest century in the history of our planet and many of them have hung their hats on Darwins' theory. I won't hold that against you if you don't hold flat earthers against me. When you're ready to return to substance, let me know
I saw a clip a month ago where he talks about whale evolution and his arguments were weak, some probably untrue.
Also, many prominent scientists (PZ Myers, Larry Moran, others) basically say that he does not understand what he's talking about when he's talking about whale evolution, or evolution in general.
All id/creationist arguments seem to be criticisms along the lines that this-and-that supposedly could not have happened through a natural process.
This in itself is an "argument from personal incredulity" but the worse thing about is that they never have any scientific (testable, falsifiable) alternative explanation, only the "magic" explanation.
Endless criticism alone is useless, they need evidence, but the evidence simply DOES NOT exist.
He talks about teaching a cow to live in the open ocean. How wrong can you understand evolution?
Obviously the land species would gradually evolve to spend more of its time in shallow water, then in deeper water, and this might take 50 million generations, as it did with whales.
Then he talks about thousands of adaptations required, as if those were a problem given the 50M generations during which they evolved in parallel.
First: although it is not necessary to have a "better" theory in hand to point out flaws in an existing one, ID does in fact provide a better explanation. Second, to get from a "land whale" (or whatever you wish to call it) to a whale requires random mutation to operate on a level of complexity that it has never come close to. You continually dodge this reality. You are free to speculate all you wish, but speculation is absolutely all you have; available evidence suggests it is way off base
Parsimony and falsifiability through experiment are cornerstones of science.
Parsimony means in this case that a theory which "explains" an unknown with an even bigger unknown, in this case a designer, is worse than a theory which doesn't.
Of course, ID fails even worse with the falsifiability requirement, because there is no real way to test for design.
there are whole scientific disciplines which rely completely on the confident ability to detect intelligent design (archaeology and forensics to name a couple). Even atheist biologists can't talk about the subject without using the word "design" constantly. Absent the obsessive commitment to materialism that currently infects biology, design would be the natural inference. It is ironic but true that it is your religion that blinds you to the obvious evidence. 500 characters is not enough: PM
There are countless examples of natural selection leading to awkward and FLAWED designs, which are explainable through evolution, but which no designer would make, unless he was a complete idiot.
The "backwired" vertebrate eye is a example of utterly incompetent "design".
Trivia: Cephalopods have evolved almost identical eyes but they are not backwired because they took a different turn early in eye evolution.
reptiles. If you say that evo's validity is not unknown. Then why the efforts to prove that birds emerged from reptiles? Or land animals from fish? Or all of the other, many, ongoing attempts to prove various assumptions regarding evolution? Why continue to have labs throughout the world which continue to breed fruit flies, hoping to see evolution in action? Don't say they have, since they're still fruit flies. No matter how mutated, they're still, merely, mutated fruit flies.
Lady - I would like to debate. In fact I've received many compliments on my hard yet fast style of debating. Sometimes I debate many times a day, but this can leave one somewhat drained. Of course I have built up a solid stamina being a Master debater. Master debaters such as myself are always looking for something stimulating to get us going. Just watch out, because when I Master debate, I come on all over the place and I come on hard!!
Sdrewski84 1 month ago
ANYONE: If you see no reply to transatlantic & possibly some other posters who come on this string - he has become one of several folk who follow me (& others) around YT with personal insults, name calling, accusations of lying and sometimes worse. I am happy to debate with those who are civil & objective, i.e. where true debate is possible. Only.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
Cont. After all, each is usesless w/o the other, in fact useless until both are fully functional & fully attached. (But if you can show that is not true be sure and provide real data.) Then there's the egg. 4) Why & how would evo prepare an egg over aeons to be ready for the sperm to hit it before the sperm & whip (and of course the entire thing) are fully connected and fully functional? You're looking at irreducible complexity. Evo only gives you dataless theories tha defy science & logic.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady ; Why don't you answer the question? Give just one example of "irreducible complexity." Be the first on the planet to do so.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile I just gave you an example, the sperm with its flagellar motor and whip and the egg it has to be implanted into. Did you see all my posts that I left today? There are 3 preceding this one. There are more Qs for you to answer within them.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady ; I asked for an example of something that is "irreducibly complex."
Desertphile 3 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@Desertphile Is this a game? I gave you an example of irreducible complexity. I;ve given this ex. to quite a few evo fans on the net before. All of them understood it was my ex. of i.c. so I am puzzled byyour repeated request. There is 0 way that evolution could synchronously build a rotary motor along with the whip it must move, and along with the egg that is going to be its eventual target, while all are "emerging" & useless in the aeons before completion. Evo can't prepare for the future.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady
There are plenty of ways to explain how a molecular structure is what it is today. if you understand evolution. Ken Miller explained that quite well at the Dover trial. If you have any sort of evidence to oppose his claims, why didn't you presented them at the Dover trial?
"useless"... there are fish deep in the ocean, with no eyes, but they have the eye sockets. you can't explain such phenotype, without understanding evolutin theory.
Evo explains Modern Medicine.
transtlantic 3 months ago
This whole debate is so heavily politicised. Behe raises some difficulties for advocates of Darwinian evolution. Darwin saw the cell as the unit of life, had he known the complexity within how would it have altered his published work?
PLScotland 6 months ago
@PLScotland ; Behe stated that Darwinian evolution is correct. He just also claimed he believes the gods help evolution along now and then--- something he cannot produce evidence for.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile Here is how I have seen Miller "refuting" examples Behe gives of intelligent design. 1st he take Behe's mousetrap & then mangles it. He then asks us to just accept his word for it that the trap will still catch "really stupid" mice. Do we see any dead mice? Of course not. Did the engineers for the trap put in useless parts? When he keeps mangling the trap more & its nothing but a coiled spring and we're supposed to believe it kills mice, well, it's embarrasing. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@Desertphile Cont. And oh yeal, all the while he's showing how the mangled mousetrap is disproving intelligent design, he's using those parts to "catch" mice that were made by i.d.! Then there is his "refutation" of our blood clotting mechanism. Does he show us any humans functioning fine w/o all the parts Behe described? No! We're told dolphins & puffer fish don't need all those parts and we are then supposed to believe we don't need all of ours, therefore. It's absurd & unscientific.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady ; You have misunderstood Miller.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile True or false: 1) Miller mangled a mousetrap & said w/0 evidence that it would kill "stupid: mice" then said that even the coil would catch mice. He said this refuted Behe's ex. of mousetrap irreducible complexiity..The parts that supposedly killed the invisible mice all came from man made technology with intelligent design. 2. Miller used the ex. of a dolphin & puffer fish to "disprove" Behe's i.c. ex. of human blood clotting? I understand fine. All True on answers.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@Desertphile I haven't misunderstood him. True or false he showed us a mangled mousetrap & told us it would kill "really stupid mice" with (as usual for evolutioin) 0 evidence, & said that refuted Behe's case? T of F he tries to get us to believe that even the spring will kill mice. T or F in each case the trap parts killing the invisible mice are all from intelligent design. T or F he "refuted" the irreducible complexity of Behe's HUMAN blood clotting mechanism by switching to marine animals?
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady ; That isn't how evolution works. Mice traps are always mice traps; modified mice traps can do other things than trap mice. That's the whole swatting point.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile If a "modified mouse traps can do other things than trap mice" what are they? Something not absurd - like a tie clip - would be nice. Afterall, using my cellphone for a tie clip no more shows it wasn't intelligently designed than using a mousetrap for a tie clip shows it wasn't intelligently designed. In fact the mechanism that holds the tie clip was...intelligently designed! You evaded my Qs and they were valid. Give me 1 evo example that is testable, observable & repeatable.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady ; Ah, so you know the answer already, but you refuse to accept it. Well, that's your problem. Meanwhile, step forward and be the first on the planet to point to anything that is "irreducibly complex." Good luck with that.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile So far you've evaded all my Qs. However I will not evade yours. All of life, from the cellular level on up, is irreducibly complex. However, I will start with something ultra simple. You will not be able to answer the Qs I ask about it either. Here we go. A sperm cell. It has a rotary motor below a whip. It has to get to a target outside of its own body, to another body of a different sex. Please attempt to answer these Qs.:
1) While thewhip & motor are "evolving..." Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady
"all of life...is IC". which is a pure lie. There are humans with 3 chamber hearts, 3 kidneys, two pancreas,...ergo...variety disproves IC. There is variety to the "rotary motor" of the sperm cell, there are even sperm cells that have more than one "rotary motor". the point here is that there is no "rotary motor" at all. There is a structure formed by molecules. it's chemistry, not machinery.
Evolution explains how such structures evolved by looking to the diversity and the genes.
transtlantic 3 months ago
@Desertphile Cont. ...While they are, figuratively speaking, just nubs of stubs, not yet even connected, why and how could evolution drive them to completion? 2) What possible use or "co-option" as Miller & other claim (as usual based on theoretical "millions of years" ago unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable dataless assumptions) could they have during the aeons before they are fully formed and fully connected? 3) Why & how would evo drive them to completion syn-chron-ous-ly? Cont
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady
2) again: observable, testable and repeatable: anyone trying to explain Plant speciation, with the observed transitional forms across the ages, plus the clear change of a population of individuals into new distict populations, clearly show evolution.
Where are the "assumptions"?
3) what "completion"? when there is variety? you can't even claim a "point of reference". to sustain your position of "IC". point us to one single human that is an example of what defines ALL human beings.
transtlantic 3 months ago
Last time I checked.....
Dr. Michael Behe had NUMEROUS PubMed articles that were submitted for peer review. All can be found on his Wikipedia page.
That being said......how many peer-reviewed scientific journals have you written Mr Ev-LIE-utionist?
0
buffboynick 6 months ago
Lots of creationist votebots hit this video
BillKiernan 1 year ago
Put together very well by PBS
NOVA | Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
pchtermino 1 year ago
What is bizarre is that Ken Miller is a strong Roman Catholic.... He doesn't seem to understand that evolution is in conflict with a majority of the bible. I'm thinking that Ken Miller is keeping his Roman Catholic belief system on hand as a security just in case. You'd think Ken Miller would just be a pantheist or similar.
HugNow 1 year ago
Hi Desertphile. Yea, for Dr. Ken Miller! There are a lot of us christians who know naturalistic evolution is the reality. The "God of the gaps arguments" damage scientific progress. These "creationists" try to turn ignorance into a virtue. Another good video. Tom
NeoPsiTom 2 years ago
This must have been vote-botted by creationists.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
your a liar and full of poop
devoceans 2 years ago
I wonder if the maker of the video realizes that the number Behe uses (10 to the 20th power cells to achieve malarial resistance) actually comes from a paper by Nicholas White entitled, "Antimalarial drug resistance" published in 2004, and is not a calculation of his own?
Alternate2GOP 2 years ago
First off, the universe was designed at the beggining of time. How could we observe something being created if, when things were created, human's didn't even have a writing system?
It's very true that a snowflake looks designed. The reason this is so is that the laws of physics were designed that way when the universe was created.
Lvin4Him 2 years ago
"...the universe was designed at the beggining of time."
No evidence, therefore *DISMISSED!*
Desertphile 2 years ago
I'm gonna ask a couple questions to see where you're coming from. How do you suggest the universe started?
Lvin4Him 2 years ago
First, please do not make a "argumentum ad ignorantiam" or argument from ignorance statement. Just because you and even scientist are not sure yet does not mean God did it.
The big bang theory traces back the expanding universe to a common starting point. What existed before? We are not sure. What caused the "bang" to happen, we don't know.
Honestly admitting ignorance in the attempt to gain knowledge does not give credibility to the unsupported hypothesis "God did it". Ok?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Ok, I'm sorry. I'll keep God out of the picture, but I will still argue my beliefs.
Something interesting I've noticed in a lot of very respected science magazines is that people are starting to move AWAY from the bog bang and are using a new theory called the big bounce. If the general scientific community is leaving the bang behind, it would be wise for you to do so too, am I correct?
Lvin4Him 2 years ago
If the evidence backs it up yes. If the science community finds new evidence, comes up with new or modified theories that better fit the facts or in evidence of new facts, then yes my view would change as well.
The failure to do so would mean that we would still believe in alchemy, an earth centered universe and that sickness is caused by evil spirits.
The best example of science changing I've heard, besides evolutionary theory, is the theory of plate tectonics.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago 2
Sorry, this is completely random on my part and is not meant to be challenging at all. Did you mean the discovery of plate tectonics?
Lvin4Him 2 years ago
No the theory of plate tectonics. This theory incorporated the theory of continental drift and seafloor spreading and had to stand up to testing and new information along the way.
My point is that no theory comes about and is simply accepted without study, testing and incorporating new information along the way. Predictions have to be viable testable for a theory to be useful.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Absolutely true.
Lvin4Him 2 years ago
but we know of no example of SC that exists minus intelligence as the main roll. But the reason why it is a good theory is that Intelligence orders and arranges thigns all the time. So it is a presntly acting cause and mechanism. Read the books and the papers. And no you dont understand the debate or the theory of evolution in its current state.
frost122585 3 years ago
« but we know of no example of SC »
SC?
« But the reason why it is a good theory »
What is a good theory? Please provide a short precis of the theory, the principles it embodies, the observations it explains, and how its hypotheses are independently verifiable.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Please provide a short precis of the theory,
The theory of ID states that certain key features in the world can be positively identified as design via an intelligence. the principles it embodies,
That natural selection and random variation alone cannot produce specified complexity. the observations it explains,
All examples of specified complexity
frost122585 3 years ago
« The theory of ID states that certain key features in the world can be positively identified as design via an intelligence. »
... How is this a theory? What's its explanatory power? What its predictive power?
« All examples of specified complexity »
Define 'specified complexity'. Explain what 'specified' means in this context. Explain how the theory *explains* these observations - how causes [A] lead to observations [B].
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Read the books. I have already answered these questions. Complexity has to do with the universal probability bound- specification is an arbitraily matchable pattern. Read the books! If you actaully knew anything at all about the theory of ID you would already know what it says about these key terms. You have proven your ignorance. But I am sure you will keep repeating your mantra. There's a testible prediction!
frost122585 3 years ago
« Complexity has to do with the universal probability bound- specification is an arbitraily matchable pattern. »
This means nothing to me. In English please. Use more than one comment if needs be. Otherwise, give me a reference to a document where I can find the exact definition of specified complexity.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
I naed a tone. Go to The Discorver Institute has tons of articles. The books you need to read are The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Also The Design Revolution. There will will get a therough understanding of specified complextity is and how the universal probability bound relates. It take 700 pages to lay this out I cant explain it al here. Has to do with various statistical modes and how they can be applied to objects and subjests like life in biology from a deisgn detection perspective.
frost122585 3 years ago
Comment removed
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Calling me a creationist is just a slur and not an argument. That shows intellectual dishonesty and decadence on your part. Your side says this because you lack the support of logic, rationality, reason and fact. Borel's work as been respected and used in support of ID and Dembski has made it clear where his argument stands- that probability is an absolutely necessary metric for a rational description and understanding of evolution and its nature. Whether Borel agrees or not is not an issue.
frost122585 2 years ago
Comment removed
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Comment removed
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Frost. Take a second.
Where did I call you a creationist? I said you were using a creationist version of a layman's explanation that Borel used in a book he wrote.
So, you are actually being dishonest by shifting the argument from the data you presented to some kind of "me vs them" argument.
Borel in his book stated that his work doesn't apply equally to evolution and the purely mathematical chance based on a single organism's chance of mutating? Do you understand that?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Now if you would like me to explain why ID is simply creationism in a lab coat, I will. I can point to logical problems, scientific problems and legal problems that all make a clear case that ID is the latest version of creationism.
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Ok but to bring up creationism is such a small and limited forum to be suggests an implied importance in the "creationist" label. That means to me that you were bringing it up unnecessarily and not by accident but to imply or taint my argument as primarily one of creationism by associating to with creationism. If this is not what you meant to do I am sorry for jumping on that but the ad hominem red herring attack of conflating ID with creationism is used all the time by ID's opposition,
frost122585 2 years ago
On Borel, it should be understood that the theory of ID goes beyond his work and actually focuses on the statistical theorems of David Wolpert. His work on NFl theorems and search logarithms are the real mathematical arguments of ID.
frost122585 2 years ago
Frost, Borel was not involved with the ID movement, but rather ID folks take his rule of thumb discussion of odds and apply them to evolution while ignoring his statement, in his own book, that to do so is incorrect.
Could you please cite a study that relates to the statistical odds against evolution happening in a specific or general way?
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
I know but as I said his work has been built upon by IDists and plenty of others. I sent you a paper laying out much of the work- there obviously has not been many "studies" because ID's work is relatively new and has been hindered by those refusing to read for example the work I just sent you.
The commentator says Behe screwed up the math because he extrapolated backwards- but he did not extrapolate backwards. He extrapolated forwards from the past. What Behe wrote in his book is correct.
frost122585 2 years ago
No, the ID cult nuts are not doing any "work" on the claim: they said so in the Dover Area School Board trial, and the Discovery Institute Church said nobody is doing any work on the claim.
Also, Behe admitted he got the math wrong, and also admitted his idiotic extrapolation was wrong--- he made the same mistakes a ten-year-old makes. Behe also accepts the fact that evolution occurred and occurs.
Desertphile 2 years ago
Do you have a link to where Behe admitted he got the math and extrapolation wrong? Not that I doubt you, just would like to get a source.
You're quite correct, Behe has stated he supports evolution.
Google "good math, bad math edge of evolution" to see Behe's new book criticized for the mathematical mistakes present therein.
Lastly I read a comment that suggested that the new ID slogan is going to be "Explore evolution".
Looking4Coffee 2 years ago
Where did he say this and about what math? I dont even know if it is relevant to the thesis.
frost122585 2 years ago 2
"The theory of ID states that certain key features in the world can be positively identified as design via an intelligence."
This is a hypothesis. And it's false.
FreePlay 3 years ago
and how its hypotheses are independently verifiable.
No hypothesis can be independently verified. In evolutionary theory you have verifications but they Are always linked to long sequences of phyla, history lines etc- However take the use of statistics to see if a person is faking their business figures. The fake figures will not line up with the natural environment + or the random chance. You conclude there is designed fraud. You just made a design inference.
Thats the skinny.
frost122585 3 years ago
« No hypothesis can be independently verified. »
Hypotheses can be tested, using observations. Obervations must be independently verifiable, if they are to support the hypothesis.
« In evolutionary theory you have verifications but they Are always linked to long sequences of phyla, history lines etc »
I haven't the foggiest what you're on about. Explain.
« You conclude there is designed fraud. »
...?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
I never said hypotheses cant be tested. You just proclaimed obsevations must and can be independetly varifiable but you didnt use any support. Shows weakness. You also changed from "hypotheses" being indeopendtly varifiable to "observations." Bait and switch tatic.
As for the other part, it might actually be above you.
Go read the books. Then get back to me.
frost122585 3 years ago
« You just proclaimed obsevations must and can be independetly varifiable but you didnt use any support. »
It's part of the methodology and definition of science. The fact that the scientific method works is its support.
« You also changed from "hypotheses" being indeopendtly varifiable to "observations." »
My mistake.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
I have sent you the paper that explains specification.
frost122585 3 years ago
"The inference of design rests entirely on the predicate that a designer exists."
No it relies on the premise that the design is there. What the desiger is - is a secondary question. You misrepresent understand and misrepresent the theory. Read the paper I listed and the books.
frost122585 3 years ago
« No it relies on the premise that the design is there. »
Well, then where is this design of yours? And how do you intend to support the assertion of design? Where is thing that we would see if and only if design were true?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Read the paper. Specified comnplexity. BTW There is no way that one can say for sure X is designed. Its like me asking you to prove somthing is not designed. You cant prove an negative. Also there is the interesting possiblity thath things that dont look designed could be designed. A designer could design somthing and hide his effect. It is only the obvious design that ID appeals to.
frost122585 3 years ago
No theory has independently verifiable evidence not general relativity- not Darwinian evolution, nothing. All theories rest on world view assumptions. Take for instance the claim of random mutations. Even Dawkins and the like will admit that chance cannot be the driver of evolutionary progression. These guys appeal to environment and fitness landscapes...
frost122585 3 years ago
« No theory has independently verifiable evidence »
Muhah!? What the hell have scientists been going on about for all these years!? There's no such thing as independently verifiable evidence; science is a sham!
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« Take for instance the claim of random mutations. »
Yes?
« Even Dawkins and the like will admit that chance cannot be the driver of evolutionary progression. »
Admit!? They're the one trying to make this point clear to YOU, my friend! YOU are the ones who keep claiming "evolution is random!" Get this through your head: a single mutation may be random, but mutations per se are a STATISTICAL occurance. Evolution as a process is the way nature filters the noise of mutations. NOT random.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
We do not say evolution is random at all. We see it as design = non random and purposive. You make no sense and once again prove you dont understand the debate at all! IDists claim "random mutation" cannot be a driving force of evolved novelty because precisely what educated people know... evolution is not random or by chance- it is orderly and the clearest examples of specified complexity cannot be purchased within the framework of the neo Darwinian synthesis. This is getting monotonous.
frost122585 3 years ago
Please stop being lazy and read the paper. Tlaking about somthing you havent even read makes you look like an... you fill in the blank.
frost122585 3 years ago
« Please stop being lazy and read the paper. »
What paper?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« We do not say evolution is random at all »
Good!
« We see it as design »
Evolution is a mechanism of design? Well, okay, if you say so...
« once again prove you dont understand the debate at all! »
I DON'T! But at least I understand evolutionary theory.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
What arranges this relationship? Let me help you there is none. So I guess again according to your unrealistic definition of a theory there is no evolutionary theory either because it is not well supported.
frost122585 3 years ago
« IDists claim "random mutation" cannot be a driving force of evolved novelty »
Why not? Like I have tried to explain three times now, mutations are noise: a STATISTICAL phenomenon. Any SINGLE mutation may be random, but statistically, ALL possible variations on a certain theme WILL be produced. On top of that, evolution acts like a filter, taking random mutations as input, and producing a NON-random result.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Because evolution is not random. You are contradicting yourself. There is nothing outside of variatiion that can give you novalty. Variation via mutation and change is what is needed before natural selection can do its job. What desides or arranges or orders the sequence of the mutations and variations?
Design. Not randomness. There is no randomness all events causitive leading back to the first cause which has a structure. What determins its structure? We knoe intelligence can. We know...
frost122585 3 years ago
« Variation via mutation and change »
Variation via mutation IS change. It's not the only mechanism of variation by the way. There's reproductive recombination, lateral gene transfer, etc.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« What desides or arranges or orders the sequence of the mutations and variations? »
Nothing. Chance, if anything. Mutations are like the noise on a tv-screen; any single dot may be random, but all together they are a statistical phenomenon.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« clearest examples of specified complexity »
1. Give us the definition for "specified complexity." Be sure to explain what the word "specified" in "specified complexity" means.
2. Give us a couple of these examples.
3. Then tell us how these are evidence for your assertion that life is designed.
« This is getting monotonous. »
Then quit. I'm not the one making you repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Ok, so where does the chance that mutation and fitness landscapes meeting each other together just the order to produce novel design find its explanation? There is clear and present purposive organization in life. Even a lot of scientific atheists will admit as much- they will chalk it up to some unknown force or multi universes or what have you. There is no independent evidence of parallel universes though.. nor natural designing forces that are non-purposive.
frost122585 3 years ago
« where does the chance that mutation and fitness landscapes meeting each other »
Like I said, mutations are a statistical occurance. Life is continually generating a plethora of variations, some of which are better suited to their environment than others. There IS NO coincidence about it. The probability of a variation occurring that is better adapted than the others is P=ONE.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« There is no independent evidence of parallel universes though. »
That's why nobody is claiming a many-universe model is more likely than any other model.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Well then i guess its not a theory then according to your definition of a theory. Lok we are going in circles. The difference between ID and multiverse is we know intelligence is a presently acting cause of novel design. There is no multiverse anything though.
frost122585 3 years ago
« Well then i guess its not a theory »
That's right. There is no scientific theory (theory as in 'well supported explanatory model') that contains the many-world hypothesis.
« The difference between ID and multiverse is... »
... that ID depends on the supernatural. Unless you are willing to claim that a *natural* entity is responsible for the creation of the universe, an entity that developed through *natural* processes.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Wrong. Design is natural it happens all the time and exists ubiquitously throughout our world.
A well "supported explanatory model" is not a quantitative definition. It is qualitative once again appealing to opinion and feelings. What I think is very well supported like the thesis laid out in No Free Lunch you can feel is not. Your definition is not adequate at all. Also where is the well supported model for how fitness landscapes and genetic variation match unprobabilistically?
frost122585 3 years ago
« Design is natural »
I agree! Natural design is what we see in nature. There's no need to assume there's a conscious intelligence behind it.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« A well "supported explanatory model" is not a quantitative definition. It is qualitative once again appealing to opinion and feelings. »
It's a definition for the word 'theory' as used in 'the theory of relativity'. A theory explains observations; it provides a model from which future observations can be predicted, so that the model and the explanation can be tested.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« What I think is very well supported »
By?
« Your definition is not adequate at all. »
O, goody. Give me your definition of the word 'theory' then.
« Also where is the well supported model for how fitness landscapes and genetic variation match unprobabilistically? »
They don't. It's not a matter of probability. Next question.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
"Wrong. Design is natural it happens all the time and exists ubiquitously throughout our world. "
"It HAPPENS all the time"? Really?
Give me an example of something that we have observed BEING DESIGNED.
The fact that something looks designed doesn't mean it IS. A snowflake looks designed.
FreePlay 3 years ago
For anyone who wants to know about what ID is really about go to designinference. com and go under the 2005 section to a paper called "Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence"
You will quickly realize that the media is lying when it conflates ID with creationism.
frost122585 3 years ago
"You will quickly realize that the media is lying when it conflates ID with creationism."
Except that ID was LITERALLY invented by a creationist as a means of redefining science to allow for supernatural explanations.
FreePlay 3 years ago
no go and read the books. Then you can have a real conversation about Bayesian vs Fisherian modes of probabilistic calculation which actually does indeed lead to some very interesting results for both sides (IDists and materialists). Start with The Design Inference then go to No Free Lunch. You have to understand some moderate math though and symbolic logic to read them.
Then you can debate people and say you know all about ID- but this time it will actually be true!
frost122585 3 years ago
You still have not said ANY SPECIFIC THINGS that I've said that are false, and you STILL haven't answered those 3 questions that would define it as a theory...
FreePlay 3 years ago
that is to say nowhere in Darwin's black box, edge of evolution, No Free Lunch, The Design Inference- will you find any theory about "why" we are here. Only that you can tell we are here for "some" purpose. You guys are not interested in treating ID for what it is.. you just simply choose to straw man it because you hate the religous and poltical views of "most" (thouhg not all by far Steve Fuller is a leftist) of the people who support and advance it. Which makes you a hater.
frost122585 3 years ago
"You guys are not interested in treating ID for what it is.. you just simply choose to straw man it because you hate the religous and poltical views of "most" (thouhg not all by far Steve Fuller is a leftist) of the people who support and advance it."
You're being ridiculous. I disapprove of ID because it has no scientific merit. You're the one attempting to bring religion and politics into this. If ID is science, why do politics and religion have to rush to its defense? Can't it stand alone?
FreePlay 3 years ago
It has and it does... you brought up dover trial and the question of "why" which you called religious... Are you fallowing your own comments?
No major ID publication has anything in it about the question of "why" which is connected to the expressed main thesis or theory of that publication. None of meyers papers, none of Dembski's books, None of Behe's, none of the privliged planet wirtings (which are about life's improbability not purpose) or videos. None. You are totally wrong. Face it.
frost122585 3 years ago
1. Describe an experiment that demonstrates the validity of intelligent design.
2. Explain how the hypothesis could be falsified.
3. Explain the predictive power of the hypothesis.
Until you can do all three of these, ID will never be science.
FreePlay 3 years ago
"It has and it does..."
Seriously? You think ID has stood up on its own under scrutiny?
Then why did the ID folks lose the Dover trial, and every subsequent ID-related trial since then?
Oh, right, because IT'S NOT SCIENCE, IT'S RELIGION.
FreePlay 3 years ago
you said
"piss-poor a job our "intelligent" designer must have done to screw things up"
well- perhaps, but then again can you produce a human being from scratch? If the designer is piss poor... that makes you what?
frost122585 3 years ago
"well- perhaps, but then again can you produce a human being from scratch? If the designer is piss poor... that makes you what?"
I sure as hell wouldn't design them to die.
FreePlay 3 years ago
*correction, obviously not "all mutations are lethal", this is the problem when I have to type out the message twice and get it wrong the second time. Most if not all mutations are deleterious, this has been experimentally verified.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"A lethal mutation is disposed of, all others are kept."
Yes, lethal to the organism itself and to the process of evolution. Considering that most if not all mutations occurring are lethal, there would be nothing for natural selection (the "driver" of evolution) to select from. Talk about the best get something for nothing schemed ever devised.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
*scheme
typo
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"Yes, lethal to the organism itself and to the process of evolution."
no, it is not lethal to the process of evolution. It is the essence of the process.
"Considering that most if not all mutations occurring are lethal"
Poppycock. Your information is wrong. The vast majority of mutations have no consequence at all. Even regarding coding section the overloaded codon base laughs at mutations and produces the exact same protein in many cases and close analogs in most others.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I'll give you a breakdown what JAD proposes.
*phylogenesis was preprogrammed self-limiting terminating process similar to ontogenesis
*chance and natural selection played no role beyond producing varieties or sub-species
*natural selection acts as a conservative process that preserves the status quo, that is, until ENOUGH RANDOM MUTATIONS HAVE GATHERED UP TO FORCE A SPECIES INTO EXTINCTION
*evolution is long since terminated and we are the end result of that determined evolution
carnage123123123 3 years ago
Yes I know that, however, it is all predicated on the NON-ACCUMULATION of mutation and the very silly presentation of lineage as single path when in reality bifurcation happens constantly. Mutations that accumulate on one branch are not the same mutation that build up on another. This doesn't just magically start happening once speciation occurs. It happens with each birth.
They do not all pile up one organism and make it expire and plbbbt there goes the species.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
There are currently thousands of species going extinct annually. Natural Selection and random mutations has all the power to make that happen. The evidence is quite clear for degradation of the genome, this is the only thing that Darwinian Evolution was good for and will continue now as the creative stages of evolution have long since terminated.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"as the creative stages of evolution"
so you admit evolutions creative power?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Yes, I admit Darwinian Evolutions non-creative power.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
Common descent and evolution I don't question. The mechanism is in question, if you weren't living in a box the whole time maybe you would have known that. Why don't you read it again and tell me how it supports Darwinian Evolution. When your done with that you can get back to me on when a dog becomes a non-dog.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
Read the link and get back to me, tell me how the newest research supports Darwinian Evolution.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
there was nothing in that article that disturbed common descent or evolution at all. Read it again.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
But seriously, something is fuc**** wrong with Youtube, I feel like I'm creating a pile of missing (links) comments as I go.
The changes that I'm talking about are obviously independent of genes. Take a look at the following link:
w w w [dot] archaeology [dot] org [slash] online [slash] interviews [slash] newman (dot) html
carnage123123123 3 years ago
copy before hitting "post comment" every comment every time.
I read his paper way back when you first mentioned it. I wrote to john on his blog about a serious flaw in his paper. He was so embarrassed he faked a cyber attack from me. How frakking lame can you get?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Not sure what happened to my other comment, don't reply to me any longer because I will not repeat what I said.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
Put on thy Darwin hat and seek thy random ejaculations.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"Put on thy Darwin hat and seek thy random ejaculations."
What?
Desertphile 3 years ago
Maybe you can help me out with something. I have been called a creationist. Yet, I have never read the bible or cared much for it except some few parts. I'm also an IDer, does that make me a creationist? According to you, of course it does. Therefore I must not deny I'm a creationist much like you shouldn't deny your a Darwimp. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Now write that down!
carnage123123123 3 years ago
I'm sorry your IDiot, but that's your problem to deal with, not mine. Good luck with that.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Can I ask a rather irrelevant question? The hat thing, whats up with the Darwinists and those hats? Just asking politely here, I don't want to discuss the fairytale just want to know why the fairies wear them. Thnx!
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"The hat thing, whats up with the Darwinists and those hats?"
What is/are "Darwinists?"
Desertphile 3 years ago
Not sure, you tell me. According to the spell check on youtube I'm at least 90 percent close to a word understood by all.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
(computational phylogenetics expert and he will explain you how genes prove that birds did evolve from reptiles)
You mean to tell me, that the only thing you have is how an evolutionist interprets the information within molecular Biology. Interpreted, from the standpoint of presupposing that evolution is fact. I have something thats not a matter of interpretation. Evolutionists insist that credibility is given to two opposing theories. The long time morphing, and the punctuated morphing. Even
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
> You mean to tell me, that the only thing
> you have is how an evolutionist interprets
> the information
Such methods might consist of e.g. locating identical pseudogenes in two genomes, with the same disabling mutations, and concluding that it proves common ancestry.
It is equivalent to locating two books where 99% of the text passages are identical (including typos) and making a wild conclusion that they are related, while ignoring the fact that it contradicts Jesus magic.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> ID science
If you claim ID is science, I challenge you to give me an example of a testable hypotheses.
Example: Evolution says we are descendants of animals who were able to synthesize vitamin C, but we are not able to.
Then so we should, if evolution is correct, be able to look into our genome and locate a turned-off pseudogene which is homologous to the ancestral vitamin C gene.
This is 100% testable, accurate evolutionary hypotheses.
Now, give me an example of an ID hypotheses.
jtoksa 3 years ago
"jtoksa", (Parsimony means in this case that a theory which "explains" an unknown with an even bigger unknown, in this case a designer, is worse than a theory which doesn't)
That is not correct. Since the theory of evolution and what it postulates, "is" known. ID science, often presents scientific data which shows evolution to be implausible. Often evolutionists seek to explain or prove one unknown(evo itself, its validity unknown)with another unknown. Like claiming that birds emerged from
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
> ID science, often presents scientific data
> which shows evolution to be implausible.
Completely untrue.
First of all there is no such thing as ID science. Id doesn't produce testable hypotheses, and it's not falsifiable, which means that it's not science. Period.
Secondly, the number of cases ID has shown evolution to be implausible is zero. If you think that is not the case, list some peer reviewed publications where ID shows evolution to be implausible.
There are, of course, none.
jtoksa 3 years ago
(list some peer reviewed publications)
I wasn't aware of that the democratic process (general consensus) had become part of the "scientific method". Here I was thinking that empiricism itself, was more like a dictatorship, establishing it's absolutes. Of course, its a good thing, since its the truth. Guess not huh? Seems fitting, it would go this way. Atheists always have had a problem with "absolute" truth. Seems the two are incompatible. Oh well, the things some will resort to in trying to...
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
> I wasn't aware of that the democratic
> process (general consensus) had become part
> of the "scientific method".
The scientific method is by definition about gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence.
ID contains NOTHING observable, empirical or measurable.
You claimed that "ID science often presents scientific data which shows evolution to be implausible".
Where? Citations? I really want to see!
You sound like a car salesman trying to sell me an invisible car.
jtoksa 3 years ago
"ID contains NOTHING observable, empirical or measurable."
Well, intelligent design doesn't disprove evolution. Though I think ID makes sense. Maybe not observably or experimentally but theoretically. At least until evolution can explain away the "apparent" design.
jityr2 3 years ago
> until evolution can explain away
> the "apparent" design
Actually it does that rather well.
Evolution is a cumulative process that consists of a large number of small improvements.
Engineering is a thought process that also consists of cumulative improvements to an original concept.
Engineers and marketing people even use the word "evolution" about how their designs improve over time.
The appearance of design in nature should not be a huge surprise because the processes are so similar.
jtoksa 3 years ago 2
Evolution of course does not explain anything: evolutionary theory does. Hermann Muller explained apparent design in the biosphere in the year 1918.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Okay so a great majority of mutations are neutral. And most of the time no information is added. Occasionally there's negative mutations or a little bit of information is lost. And on very rare occasions there's a positive mutation and a little bit of information in gained. At least that's what I heard. If we look at a "before and after" picture of a type of species there's not an obvious change after a thousand year maybe but after millions of years slow accumulations add up. Then ID is wrong??
jityr2 3 years ago
> Then ID is wrong?
Id is wrong because after the concept has been around for many years, there still is not a shred of evidence to support it.
None at all. Really!
It is ridiculous but it true.
If someone comes up with a new theory, he is expected to produce supporting evidence in favor of the new theory.
Creationists cannot do that, so they run a smear campaign against evolution instead, using extremely weak arguments.
That's of course not how science works.
jtoksa 3 years ago
Ofcourse ID makes sense observably, molecular machines, symbolic genetic code, error-minimization, error correction etc...This all happens in real-time, there is no denying ID. Only a design denier would deny something as obvious.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"Of course ID makes sense observably, molecular mach...."
No, Creationism does not "make sense." You will not find anything in the biosphere that was "designed." If you ever do, please let the Creationism cults like the Discovery Institute Church, and Behe, know.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Sure thing, I'll let them know how ill informed the Darwinista still are.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"Ofcourse ID makes sense observably"
As creationists like to point out we only see a pig come out of a pig and a dog come out of a dog. Those are all natural processes. So obviously nature is creating animals. Where's the evidence that someone created the first animal of each kind if each one we observe is created from each other and evolves to its habitat? Maybe someone created a whole different set of species that evolved into another set. How do you know?
darkforce333 3 years ago
Another thing that doesn't make sense with id is why is there so much universe hostile to life and the little life there is has a lot of flaws. For such a grand architect it seems like a disaster. Also, evolution accounts for most of the error-minimization, and other things that we are "designed to have" while explaining the heaps of evidence creationists ignore. Third, Somehow your positing a designer who is more complex yet somehow design doesn't apply to him? Is that called special pleading?
darkforce333 3 years ago
Lots doesn't make sense at the moment, LOTS! In fact, because ID has questioned the mechanism over Darwinian Evolution, because molecular biology is discovering marvels of engineering in biological systems which are not fit for biologists themselves, because everything in biology requires more then abstract and crude explanations, and because at a higher resolution there are millions upon millions of more missing links between molecular structures, there is a growing demanding for making sense
carnage123123123 3 years ago
I'm not sure what missing links your referring to. I hope you're not trying to make an argument from ignorance like most creationists do. I'd be glad to see the evidence that shows the insufficiency of evolution as long as it is positive evidence against it. I mean that sincerely.
darkforce333 3 years ago
I have no time for crackpottery, evolution was as determined as ontogeny. The evidence speaks highly in favor of a front-loaded "prescribed" evolution. I suggest you look up the prescribed evolutionary hypothesis by John A. Davison.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"John A. Davison."
HAHAHA are you still toting the paranoid freak?
I say 'paranoid' in jest of course. He didn't really think I'd hacked his blog site. I actually was semi-amused at the childish antics he resorted to in order to avoid answering my simple question. Although I'd rather he addressed it.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Have you been following me around like some kind of dog on a leash? Anyways, JAD didn't "address" your question because its already been addressed in his PEH. You simply ignore it all because like JAD say's, you were "prescribed" that way.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"Anyways, JAD didn't "address" your question because its already been addressed in his PEH."
Which question is that carnage? Hmm?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Darwinian Evolutionary Biologists constantly seek to fill in the gaps on the "tree of life",these constitute missing links, but I'm sure you already knew that. This is all fine and dandy,except when we decrease the scope by increasing the resolution of biological systems all the way up to molecular structures the multiplier increases proportionally by a magnitude that makes the crude notion of a "missing link" equal to millions of missing links required for that one "transformation".
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"Darwinian Evolutionary Biologists constantly seek to fill in the gaps on the "tree of life""
But not to prove evolution. It's evident enough without more evidence. Data gathering is what we do. Got a problem with that?
Missing? hahaha.
Except in those cases where we have so many that we can't even tell where to put a demarcation line.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Natural Selections only job was to prevent changes from occurring. Random Mutations works well within a species, after constant artificial selective pressure, a dog evidently remains a dog, yet it varies in size, weight, type etc..., all dogs can all still reproduce with any type in its class. That's all Darwinian Evolution was good for. The predictive power of evolution remains a catastrophe.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
*all dogs can all still reproduce with any type in its "dog class"
typo
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"Natural Selections only job was to prevent changes from occurring."
ho ho ho and what have YOU been smoking?
"Random Mutations works well within a species"
Yes, they certainly DO. And WTF do you think might actually have the frakking power to STOP that process? Where's the frakking info that the dog's DNA is checked against to make sure it hasn't strayed too far? And how is THAT kept from mutating?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
Tell me now, when does a dog become a non-dog? Thanks for telling me that. There is an obvious control mechanism and that mechanism functions to regulate changes. When you regulate changes, your preventing change, thus reducing it. If you read the PEH then you might know about the mechanism.
carnage123123123 3 years ago
"When you regulate changes, your preventing change"
This is not what happens in biology. Environments DO CHANGE. The size of the genome is variable. The content of the genome is variable. YOU never addressed the question I raised to John either. Remember? Regarding accumulation of point mutations?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
How can the mathematical probability be 1 to 1?
Maybe I've misunderstood something. But wouldn't that mean that for every cell that is correctly copied, there would be another cell, incorrectly copied, or mutated?
Even the incomparable probabilities of a poker hand, are something which I'd doubt are 1 to 1. Wouldn't that mean that every other hand which one is dealt, would contain at least a pair? Of course, considering the discards and their replacements, would change the math. But even then?
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how come all athiests are either extremely fat or just balding even somethings both...
It because of there hatred for god i'm sure... hahahaha
Twopecshaker 3 years ago
RandomChance7,
Furthermore, my experience is that promoters of ID are almost always religiously motivated, rather than just promoting a scientific idea, as they sometimes quite transparently claim to be.
They reject an idea solely because it is not compatible with their world view, which makes truth a secondary consideration.
Of course, in their view, their religion is the truth, so they do not see it that way.
jtoksa 3 years ago
jtoksa...
you are not talking about me - the guy you are supposedly having a converastion with. As for promoters of ID, would you include agnostic David Berlinski?
Atheists have been by and large responsible for the bloodiest century in the history of our planet and many of them have hung their hats on Darwins' theory. I won't hold that against you if you don't hold flat earthers against me. When you're ready to return to substance, let me know
RandomChance7 3 years ago
RandomChance7:
Sorry, did not want to offend you.
> Atheists have been by and large responsible
> for the bloodiest century in the history
Until 100 years ago, religion had a monopoly on mass murder.
If you are thinking about Hitler, he was a catholic, although he had abandoned Catholicism.
Stalin was studying in a priest seminary, later became a Bolshevist and killed every priest :-)
Shintoist Imperial Japan committed the cruelest atrocities of WWII, worse even than the Germans.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> As for promoters of ID, would you include
> agnostic David Berlinski?
I saw a clip a month ago where he talks about whale evolution and his arguments were weak, some probably untrue.
Also, many prominent scientists (PZ Myers, Larry Moran, others) basically say that he does not understand what he's talking about when he's talking about whale evolution, or evolution in general.
Also, biology is not his field.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> agnostic David Berlinski?
All id/creationist arguments seem to be criticisms along the lines that this-and-that supposedly could not have happened through a natural process.
This in itself is an "argument from personal incredulity" but the worse thing about is that they never have any scientific (testable, falsifiable) alternative explanation, only the "magic" explanation.
Endless criticism alone is useless, they need evidence, but the evidence simply DOES NOT exist.
jtoksa 3 years ago
> agnostic David Berlinski?
I watched the Berlinski clip again.
He talks about teaching a cow to live in the open ocean. How wrong can you understand evolution?
Obviously the land species would gradually evolve to spend more of its time in shallow water, then in deeper water, and this might take 50 million generations, as it did with whales.
Then he talks about thousands of adaptations required, as if those were a problem given the 50M generations during which they evolved in parallel.
jtoksa 3 years ago
First: although it is not necessary to have a "better" theory in hand to point out flaws in an existing one, ID does in fact provide a better explanation. Second, to get from a "land whale" (or whatever you wish to call it) to a whale requires random mutation to operate on a level of complexity that it has never come close to. You continually dodge this reality. You are free to speculate all you wish, but speculation is absolutely all you have; available evidence suggests it is way off base
RandomChance7 3 years ago
> ID does in fact provide a better explanation
It absolutely does not.
Parsimony and falsifiability through experiment are cornerstones of science.
Parsimony means in this case that a theory which "explains" an unknown with an even bigger unknown, in this case a designer, is worse than a theory which doesn't.
Of course, ID fails even worse with the falsifiability requirement, because there is no real way to test for design.
jtoksa 3 years ago
there are whole scientific disciplines which rely completely on the confident ability to detect intelligent design (archaeology and forensics to name a couple). Even atheist biologists can't talk about the subject without using the word "design" constantly. Absent the obsessive commitment to materialism that currently infects biology, design would be the natural inference. It is ironic but true that it is your religion that blinds you to the obvious evidence. 500 characters is not enough: PM
RandomChance7 3 years ago
> Absent the obsessive commitment to
> design would be the natural inference
No.
There are countless examples of natural selection leading to awkward and FLAWED designs, which are explainable through evolution, but which no designer would make, unless he was a complete idiot.
The "backwired" vertebrate eye is a example of utterly incompetent "design".
Trivia: Cephalopods have evolved almost identical eyes but they are not backwired because they took a different turn early in eye evolution.
jtoksa 3 years ago
reptiles. If you say that evo's validity is not unknown. Then why the efforts to prove that birds emerged from reptiles? Or land animals from fish? Or all of the other, many, ongoing attempts to prove various assumptions regarding evolution? Why continue to have labs throughout the world which continue to breed fruit flies, hoping to see evolution in action? Don't say they have, since they're still fruit flies. No matter how mutated, they're still, merely, mutated fruit flies.
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
> No matter how
> mutated, they're still, merely, mutated
> fruit flies.
I can see where this is going to ... the "each according to it's kind" biblical blabber.
I think what you are trying to say is that speciation cannot be made to happen in a lab.
I think a few dozen speciation events are actually known to science, some with, you guessed it, fruit flies :-)
jtoksa 3 years ago