Gaps in Evolution and Natural Selection Filled With I.D.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Instead of posting a detailed analysis of my thoughts, I thought it would be easier to just post an couple quick ones, along with information that shows the balance in Evolution and Natural Selection through Intelligent design.

I find a real easy way to look at evolution is with relativity. A monkey couldn't have designed a car - or any of the mechanical creations that humans have designed, it takes intelligence to do that. A monkey couldn't have sculpted the Statue of David or painted the Sistine Chapel, it takes intelligence to do that.

So the question that I always ask myself; if humans with all our intelligence and creations can't understand the universe - or our own DNA - in its entirety, how is it possible that it wasn't an intelligence greater than ours that created the universe and human life?

In fact, the concept of an intelligent designer actually fits in perfectly with the logic of relativity, natural selection, and evolution. Something smarter and greater than we are created us, and gave us the ability to create things in the same manner. The car is a perfect example - cars have evolved greatly from the Model T that Henry Ford invented, however, only with the help of an intelligent designer.

Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe"

I have no reason to believe that the acclaimed physicist Roger Penrose supports intelligent design. But he's definitely not afraid to take on critics of the argument for fine-tuning. In the video below, he explains that the fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe is this precise: 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123

-Evidence for God in a spiritually troubled world, part 10

Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore

As David Klinghoffer noted the other day, a well-known science journalist has had it with evolutionary pretensions. It's time to stop the "scientists now know" show and, rather, honestly "Celebrate the Unknowns." This article deserves special emphasis -- it's that good. Writing in Nature on the 60th anniversary of the elucidation of the DNA molecule's double-helix structure, Ball observes:

Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level.......

how can a molecule be smart, any more than a hard drive? But if intelligence were impressed into it, that makes sense. That's how intelligence is impressed into all the information storage devices we know about. Since DNA is rapidly becoming the IT engineer's storage medium of choice, the logic is complete.

-Paper Finds Functional Reasons For "Redundant" Codons, Fulfilling a Prediction from Intelligent Design
-Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt<---- Make sure to read pages 4,5, and 6!
-Icon of Evolution “Lucy” Bites the Dust
-Early tree-dwelling bipedal human ancestor was similar to ancient apes and 'Lucy' but not living apes
-Fossil Find Challenges Evolutionary Theory
-Fossil Foot Indicates New Prehuman Species
-The First Race: Out-of-Australia, Not Africa!
-N.L. fossil shows earliest evidence ever of animals with muscles

[chiver78]

I see where this thread was started, and as such will tread lightly.....but I challenge the OP to answer why monkeys can't open a bottle of wine to accompany dinner or reattach a button on a garment. monkeys and humans have evolved at different paces. science has progressed in leaps and bounds from that which was generally accepted over the years.

IMHO, Intelligent Design as discussed in a religious forum is about as valuable as gravity discussed in a French class.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I'm not sure there was an actual question in there, but there is a reason that apes and humans have developed differently - the biggest reason is intelligence. It was a point about relativity, as in, we are like apes to the ID of this world - God - the greatest power of all.

For the record, it has only been the last couple hundred years that religion and science have been at odds. Read Science: A Four Thousand Year History by Patricia Fara, it's truly a great book.

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2014 19:25:36 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I see where this thread was started, and as such will tread lightly.....but I challenge the OP to answer why monkeys can't open a bottle of wine to accompany dinner or reattach a button on a garment. monkeys and humans have evolved at different paces. science has progressed in leaps and bounds from that which was generally accepted over the years.

IMHO, Intelligent Design as discussed in a religious forum is about as valuable as gravity discussed in a French class.

Maybe someone messed around with our DNA, about 150 thousand years ago, and the end result is us, hybrid primates.

[Angel!]

A being far enough advanced from us would be indistinguishable from a god. An intelligent designer could just as easily be an advanced race of aliens. Even if you buy the whole ID thing, that is not proof of god. Just merely proof of someone far more advanced.

But, we all know ID was developed as an attempt to put science behind God's existence. The problem is ID is not really a theory. It is more 'we don't know x, therefore god'. Trying to pass off what you don't understand as 'god did it' is the ultimate copout IMO. Whether or not there is a god, ID is not science. ID puts us in line with ancient civilizations that had a god for everything. After all, if they couldn't explain why the sun rose or an earthquake happened, it was obviously a god's work.

[Shooby]

Each species after its own kind.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Ancient Egyptians (and other ancient cultures) were designing/developing and building massive mathematical wonders long before your God was even a thought.

The great Pyramids of Egypt are so close to geometric perfection, it's hard to explain. Same with the Ancient Greek structures - the Parthenon for example. The complex mathematics used by the ancient Egyptians has yet to be matched by today's modern technology.

Even humans evolved (at a faster pace than some creatures) from a 'simpler' life form to a more complex-thinking, intelligent life.

But in order to understand that, you have to first believe in Evolution - which has been proven to be a scientific fact through hard evidence.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 27, 2014 21:29:26 GMT -5 Angel! said:

A being far enough advanced from us would be indistinguishable from a god. An intelligent designer could just as easily be an advanced race of aliens. Even if you buy the whole ID thing, that is not proof of god. Just merely proof of someone far more advanced.

But, we all know ID was developed as an attempt to put science behind God's existence. The problem is ID is not really a theory. It is more 'we don't know x, therefore god'. Trying to pass off what you don't understand as 'god did it' is the ultimate copout IMO. Whether or not there is a god, ID is not science. ID puts us in line with ancient civilizations that had a god for everything. After all, if they couldn't explain why the sun rose or an earthquake happened, it was obviously a god's work.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe"
www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu033691.html

Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore
www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/genetics_is_too071621.html

Paper Finds Functional Reasons For "Redundant" Codons, Fulfilling a Prediction from Intelligent Design
www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/paper_finds_fun089301.html

In other words, evolution without ID by God is on its last legs.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Oh, and there is this little doozy that I forgot to post.

New human species identified from Kenya fossils

The discoveries suggests that at least three distinct species of humans co-existed in Africa.

The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans.

The research has been published in the journal Nature....

.... With the discovery of the three new fossils researchers can say with more certainty that H.rudolfensis really was a separate type of human that existed around two million years ago alongside other species of humans..

....This find is the latest in a growing body of evidence that challenges the view that our species evolved in a smooth linear progression from our primate ancestors.

Instead, according to Dr Meave Leakey of the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, who led the research the find shows that there was a diversity early on in the evolution of our species.

"Our past was a diverse past," she told BBC News, "our species was evolving in the same way that other species of animals evolved. There was nothing unique about us until we began to make sophisticated stone tools."

In other groups of animals many different species evolve, each with new traits, such as plumage, or webbed feet. If the new trait is better suited to the environment then the new species thrives, if not it becomes extinct.

According to Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, fossil evidence is increasingly suggesting that human evolution followed the same pattern.

"Humans seem to have been evolving in different ways in different regions. It was almost as if nature was developing different human prototypes with different attributes, only one of which, an ancestor of our species, was ultimately successful in evolutionary terms," he said.

According to Dr Leakey, the growing body of evidence to suggest that humans evolved in the same way as other animals

[Angel!]

Aug 27, 2014 22:32:43 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe"
www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/roger_penrose_on_cosmic_finetu033691.html

Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore
www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/genetics_is_too071621.html

Paper Finds Functional Reasons For "Redundant" Codons, Fulfilling a Prediction from Intelligent Design
www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/paper_finds_fun089301.html

In other words, evolution without ID by God is on its last legs.

Seriously?  A creationist website with such scientific analysis such as:

Since the authors of the article fail to mention evolution, we'll move in and gather their facts as evidence for intelligent design.

is what you are going to use to prove ID?

Find me a paper published in a legit peer-reviewed journal & then we will talk.  Until then it is just an author trying to twist things to prove something that cannot be proven because it isn't a legit theory.

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 14:58:15 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Oh, and there is this little doozy that I forgot to post.

New human species identified from Kenya fossils

The discoveries suggests that at least three distinct species of humans co-existed in Africa.

The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from early primates to modern humans.

The research has been published in the journal Nature....

.... With the discovery of the three new fossils researchers can say with more certainty that H.rudolfensis really was a separate type of human that existed around two million years ago alongside other species of humans..

....This find is the latest in a growing body of evidence that challenges the view that our species evolved in a smooth linear progression from our primate ancestors.

Instead, according to Dr Meave Leakey of the Turkana Basin Institute in Nairobi, who led the research the find shows that there was a diversity early on in the evolution of our species.

"Our past was a diverse past," she told BBC News, "our species was evolving in the same way that other species of animals evolved. There was nothing unique about us until we began to make sophisticated stone tools."

In other groups of animals many different species evolve, each with new traits, such as plumage, or webbed feet. If the new trait is better suited to the environment then the new species thrives, if not it becomes extinct.

According to Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, fossil evidence is increasingly suggesting that human evolution followed the same pattern.

"Humans seem to have been evolving in different ways in different regions. It was almost as if nature was developing different human prototypes with different attributes, only one of which, an ancestor of our species, was ultimately successful in evolutionary terms," he said.

According to Dr Leakey, the growing body of evidence to suggest that humans evolved in the same way as other animals

I'm literally not even sure what you think you are proving here.  Nothing in here suggests that ID is required for evolution.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Paper Finds Functional Reasons For "Redundant" Codons, Fulfilling a Prediction from Intelligent Design

A new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Frontiers in Genetics, "Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing," finds that so-called "redundant" codons may actually serve important functions in the genome. Redundant (also called "degenerate") codons are those triplets of nucleotides that encode the same amino acid. For example, in the genetic code, the codons GGU, GGC, GGA, and GGG all encode the amino acid glycine. While it has been shown (see here) that such redundancy is actually optimized to minimize the impact of mutations resulting in amino acid changes, it is generally assumed that synonymous codons are functionally equivalent. They just encode the same amino acid, and that's it.

Well, think again. The theory of intelligent design predicts that living organisms will be rich in information, and thus it encourages us to seek out new sources of functionally important information in the genome. This new paper fulfills an ID prediction by finding that synonymous codons can lead to different rates of translation that can ultimately impact protein folding and function.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 28, 2014 15:19:47 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 28, 2014 14:58:15 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Oh, and there is this little doozy that I forgot to post.

I'm literally not even sure what you think you are proving here.  Nothing in here suggests that ID is required for evolution.

Why don't you explain what linear evolution is, and why - mathematically speaking - if humans aren't in the linear evolution that was originally predicted, it's a big deal? As the doctors in the article are saying it is.

[Pants]

Aug 28, 2014 15:33:15 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 28, 2014 15:19:47 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I'm literally not even sure what you think you are proving here.  Nothing in here suggests that ID is required for evolution.

Why don't you explain what linear evolution is, and why - mathematically speaking - if humans aren't in the linear evolution that was originally predicted, it's a big deal? As the doctors in the article are saying it is.

Why would humans be in linear evolution? In fact, if humans were in linear evolution, it would be a stronger argument for ID as it implies and end state (humans) that is desired over all others and necessitate previous steps in order to achieve the "end." In fact, branching evolution is what people who do not advocate ID would be more likely to expect.

I'm not sure what you're arguing either?

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 15:29:45 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Paper Finds Functional Reasons For "Redundant" Codons, Fulfilling a Prediction from Intelligent Design

A new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Frontiers in Genetics, "Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing," finds that so-called "redundant" codons may actually serve important functions in the genome. Redundant (also called "degenerate") codons are those triplets of nucleotides that encode the same amino acid. For example, in the genetic code, the codons GGU, GGC, GGA, and GGG all encode the amino acid glycine. While it has been shown (see here) that such redundancy is actually optimized to minimize the impact of mutations resulting in amino acid changes, it is generally assumed that synonymous codons are functionally equivalent. They just encode the same amino acid, and that's it.

Well, think again. The theory of intelligent design predicts that living organisms will be rich in information, and thus it encourages us to seek out new sources of functionally important information in the genome. This new paper fulfills an ID prediction by finding that synonymous codons can lead to different rates of translation that can ultimately impact protein folding and function.

Read the paper. The paper does not argue ID at all...never even mentions it. The person who wrote the article merely is interpreting the findings as proof of ID.

Find me a peer-reviewed paper, published in a legit journal that discusses ID as a legitimate theory.  This does not.

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 15:33:15 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 28, 2014 15:19:47 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I'm literally not even sure what you think you are proving here.  Nothing in here suggests that ID is required for evolution.

Why don't you explain what linear evolution is, and why - mathematically speaking - if humans aren't in the linear evolution that was originally predicted, it's a big deal? As the doctors in the article are saying it is.

Why don't you explain why it's a big deal.   I am pretty sure this has been the accepted theory for a very long time now.  I think it would be odd if we evolved differently than animals.  Haven't they known for decades that neanderthals were a completely different branch & we did not evolve from them?  This just seems to further confirm that line of thinking.

I'm with Pants that I don't find this to be a big deal & actually seems to more discount ID than anything. Wouldn't an intelligent designer know the progression they wanted evolution to take?  Why create multiple branches of human species if you know where you want to go?  Nature would create multiple branches - totally fits with the theory of evolution.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 28, 2014 15:41:16 GMT -5 Pants said:

Aug 28, 2014 15:33:15 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Why don't you explain what linear evolution is, and why - mathematically speaking - if humans aren't in the linear evolution that was originally predicted, it's a big deal? As the doctors in the article are saying it is.

Why would humans be in linear evolution? In fact, if humans were in linear evolution, it would be a stronger argument for ID as it implies and end state (humans) that is desired over all others and necessitate previous steps in order to achieve the "end." In fact, branching evolution is what people who do not advocate ID would be more likely to expect.

I'm not sure what you're arguing either?

Really? So the fact that there is mounting evidence against linear evolution of humans, goes to the point that is what pure evolutionsists were expecting? Hmm, interesting, because usually when evidence is piling up against something it usually means that it's NOT what people were expecting to see.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 28, 2014 16:36:29 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 28, 2014 15:29:45 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Read the paper. The paper does not argue ID at all...never even mentions it. The person who wrote the article merely is interpreting the findings as proof of ID.

Find me a peer-reviewed paper, published in a legit journal that discusses ID as a legitimate theory.  This does not.

I did read the paper, and the paper fits into the theory of ID, just as the article states. Just like how over the years people have used findings to fit the theory of evolution together. It's in the same wheel house as every scientific discovery that has ever been made.

[Pants]

Aug 28, 2014 16:49:15 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 28, 2014 15:41:16 GMT -5 Pants said:

Why would humans be in linear evolution? In fact, if humans were in linear evolution, it would be a stronger argument for ID as it implies and end state (humans) that is desired over all others and necessitate previous steps in order to achieve the "end." In fact, branching evolution is what people who do not advocate ID would be more likely to expect.

I'm not sure what you're arguing either?

Really? So the fact that there is mounting evidence against linear evolution of humans, goes to the point that is what pure evolutionsists were expecting? Hmm, interesting, because usually when evidence is piling up against something it usually means that it's NOT what people were expecting to see.

Erm, "pure evolutionists"? What does that even mean?

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 28, 2014 16:43:56 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 28, 2014 15:33:15 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Why don't you explain what linear evolution is, and why - mathematically speaking - if humans aren't in the linear evolution that was originally predicted, it's a big deal? As the doctors in the article are saying it is.

Why don't you explain why it's a big deal.   I am pretty sure this has been the accepted theory for a very long time now.  I think it would be odd if we evolved differently than animals.  Haven't they known for decades that neanderthals were a completely different branch & we did not evolve from them?  This just seems to further confirm that line of thinking.

I'm with Pants that I don't find this to be a big deal & actually seems to more discount ID than anything. Wouldn't an intelligent designer know the progression they wanted evolution to take?  Why create multiple branches of human species if you know where you want to go?  Nature would create multiple branches - totally fits with the theory of evolution.

I knew you would have no idea why. Read pages four, five, and six of this link.. books.google.ca/books?id=tkYNbLpcQIMC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=fossils+flips+evolution&source=bl&ots=ZOQjd3S8WK&sig=CKDzetfCb1ffPxl2ko0D-BxZj3A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z3R3U-HvII6Eqgb4lYKgDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=fossils%20flips%20evolution&f=false

I'm not trying to disprove the theory if evolution, what I'm pointing out is that natural selection is not the reason for it as the math doesn't add up. What I'm saying is that things are evolving as they should, as they have been designed to. Which is why we aren't seeing the randomness in evolution, per the predicted theory in its current form.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 28, 2014 16:56:55 GMT -5 Pants said:

Aug 28, 2014 16:49:15 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Really? So the fact that there is mounting evidence against linear evolution of humans, goes to the point that is what pure evolutionsists were expecting? Hmm, interesting, because usually when evidence is piling up against something it usually means that it's NOT what people were expecting to see.

Erm, "pure evolutionists"? What does that even mean?

One who believes the theory of evolution is proven. So how about the rest of if? You know, how the experts were amazed?

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 16:59:36 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 28, 2014 16:56:55 GMT -5 Pants said:

Erm, "pure evolutionists"? What does that even mean?

One who believes the theory of evolution is proven. So how about the rest of if? You know, how the experts were amazed?

It is really hard to argue with someone who doesn't understand evolution. Linear evolution was the theory back when Darwin came up with the whole thing. That was dropped a long time ago. The theory of evolution has not remained fixed since that time, but been modified as additional data comes along. A lot of research has been done since Darwin's time.

If linear evolution was a major debate right now, then scientists wouldn't be in agreement that homo sapiens and neanderthals existed at the same time and are two separate branches with a common ancestor. Much like us and chimps, we did not evolve from chimps. We evolved from a common ancestor.

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 16:58:10 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 28, 2014 16:43:56 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Why don't you explain why it's a big deal.   I am pretty sure this has been the accepted theory for a very long time now.  I think it would be odd if we evolved differently than animals.  Haven't they known for decades that neanderthals were a completely different branch & we did not evolve from them?  This just seems to further confirm that line of thinking.

I'm with Pants that I don't find this to be a big deal & actually seems to more discount ID than anything. Wouldn't an intelligent designer know the progression they wanted evolution to take?  Why create multiple branches of human species if you know where you want to go?  Nature would create multiple branches - totally fits with the theory of evolution.

I knew you would have no idea why. Read pages four, five, and six of this link.. books.google.ca/books?id=tkYNbLpcQIMC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=fossils+flips+evolution&source=bl&ots=ZOQjd3S8WK&sig=CKDzetfCb1ffPxl2ko0D-BxZj3A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z3R3U-HvII6Eqgb4lYKgDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=fossils%20flips%20evolution&f=false

I'm not trying to disprove the theory if evolution, what I'm pointing out is that natural selection is not the reason for it as the math doesn't add up. What I'm saying is that things are evolving as they should, as they have been designed to. Which is why we aren't seeing the randomness in evolution, per the predicted theory in its current form.

We have all kinds of randomness in evolution. It baffles me anyone would say otherwise. With all the plants, flowers, trees, insects, reptiles, birds, etc you don't see randomness.

The monkies with typewriters thing really only applies if you want a very specific results. The odds of getting war and peace are billions to one. The odds of getting us are billions to one. But evolution wasn't seeking to create us or anything. Life was created and something would be the result, we just happened to be it. If not us, then something else or maybe nothing at all. It is like rolling a die, the odds of getting a 6 are one in six, the odds of getting something are guaranteed. We just happened to be that result at this time on this planet.

I suppose if you need us to be the end result, then maybe you do need ID. But IMO it is ridiculous to assume we are anything but a roll of the genetic dice and years of evolution. I don't need ID for that.

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 16:52:47 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 28, 2014 16:36:29 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Read the paper. The paper does not argue ID at all...never even mentions it. The person who wrote the article merely is interpreting the findings as proof of ID.

Find me a peer-reviewed paper, published in a legit journal that discusses ID as a legitimate theory.  This does not.

I did read the paper, and the paper fits into the theory of ID, just as the article states. Just like how over the years people have used findings to fit the theory of evolution together. It's in the same wheel house as every scientific discovery that has ever been made.

A theory is scientifically testable, ID is not. ID is not a theory. ID is 'I don't know, therefore god'. To understand how science works you need to understand what makes a theory. There is a reason you will not find a legit paper published on ID.

To say something backs a theory is meaningless if the theory can not be tested. Is there any evidence that would disprove ID? Seriously, what would disprove ID? If there is nothing that can disprove it, then it isn't a valid theory and more of a religion or pseudoscience.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 28, 2014 21:00:32 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 28, 2014 16:59:36 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

One who believes the theory of evolution is proven. So how about the rest of if? You know, how the experts were amazed?

It is really hard to argue with someone who doesn't understand evolution. Linear evolution was the theory back when Darwin came up with the whole thing. That was dropped a long time ago. The theory of evolution has not remained fixed since that time, but been modified as additional data comes along. A lot of research has been done since Darwin's time.

If linear evolution was a major debate right now, then scientists wouldn't be in agreement that homo sapiens and neanderthals existed at the same time and are two separate branches with a common ancestor. Much like us and chimps, we did not evolve from chimps. We evolved from a common ancestor.

New human species identified from Kenya fossils

This find is the latest in a growing body of evidence that challenges the view that our species evolved in a smooth linear progression from our primate ancestors.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 28, 2014 21:23:54 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 28, 2014 16:58:10 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

I knew you would have no idea why. Read pages four, five, and six of this link.. books.google.ca/books?id=tkYNbLpcQIMC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=fossils+flips+evolution&source=bl&ots=ZOQjd3S8WK&sig=CKDzetfCb1ffPxl2ko0D-BxZj3A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z3R3U-HvII6Eqgb4lYKgDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=fossils%20flips%20evolution&f=false

I'm not trying to disprove the theory if evolution, what I'm pointing out is that natural selection is not the reason for it as the math doesn't add up. What I'm saying is that things are evolving as they should, as they have been designed to. Which is why we aren't seeing the randomness in evolution, per the predicted theory in its current form.

We have all kinds of randomness in evolution. It baffles me anyone would say otherwise. With all the plants, flowers, trees, insects, reptiles, birds, etc you don't see randomness.

The monkies with typewriters thing really only applies if you want a very specific results. The odds of getting war and peace are billions to one. The odds of getting us are billions to one. But evolution wasn't seeking to create us or anything. Life was created and something would be the result, we just happened to be it. If not us, then something else or maybe nothing at all. It is like rolling a die, the odds of getting a 6 are one in six, the odds of getting something are guaranteed. We just happened to be that result at this time on this planet.

I suppose if you need us to be the end result, then maybe you do need ID. But IMO it is ridiculous to assume we are anything but a roll of the genetic dice and years of evolution. I don't need ID for that.

Yes, I know you don't understand the math, that's already been established.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 28, 2014 21:28:55 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 28, 2014 16:52:47 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

I did read the paper, and the paper fits into the theory of ID, just as the article states. Just like how over the years people have used findings to fit the theory of evolution together. It's in the same wheel house as every scientific discovery that has ever been made.

A theory is scientifically testable, ID is not. ID is not a theory. ID is 'I don't know, therefore god'. To understand how science works you need to understand what makes a theory. There is a reason you will not find a legit paper published on ID.

To say something backs a theory is meaningless if the theory can not be tested. Is there any evidence that would disprove ID? Seriously, what would disprove ID? If there is nothing that can disprove it, then it isn't a valid theory and more of a religion or pseudoscience.

Just because you say something doesn't make it so. The article that I posted states, the paper fits with what ID theorists were predicting. Keep thinking evolution is almost all wrapped up as a series if random events, even neo-darwinists are saying that DNA is far more advanced than we had originally thought.

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 21:44:46 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 28, 2014 21:28:55 GMT -5 Angel! said:

A theory is scientifically testable, ID is not. ID is not a theory. ID is 'I don't know, therefore god'. To understand how science works you need to understand what makes a theory. There is a reason you will not find a legit paper published on ID.

To say something backs a theory is meaningless if the theory can not be tested. Is there any evidence that would disprove ID? Seriously, what would disprove ID? If there is nothing that can disprove it, then it isn't a valid theory and more of a religion or pseudoscience.

Just because you say something doesn't make it so. The article that I posted states, the paper fits with what ID theorists were predicting. Keep thinking evolution is almost all wrapped up as a series if random events, even neo-darwinists are saying that DNA is far more advanced than we had originally thought.

Let's say ID is a valid theory. All theories need evidence that support the theory. ID has loads of support because the theory is basically everything science says regarding evolution is correct and god did it. All theories also need something that can disprove them. There are tons of ways that evolution could be disproved if the right evidence came along.

What would disprove ID? If the answer is nothing then it isn't a valid scientific theory. So I would really like to know the answer.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 29, 2014 0:22:50 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Aug 28, 2014 21:44:46 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Just because you say something doesn't make it so. The article that I posted states, the paper fits with what ID theorists were predicting. Keep thinking evolution is almost all wrapped up as a series if random events, even neo-darwinists are saying that DNA is far more advanced than we had originally thought.

Let's say ID is a valid theory. All theories need evidence that support the theory. ID has loads of support because the theory is basically everything science says regarding evolution is correct and god did it. All theories also need something that can disprove them. There are tons of ways that evolution could be disproved if the right evidence came along.

What would disprove ID? If the answer is nothing then it isn't a valid scientific theory. So I would really like to know the answer.

You are looking at it the wrong way. The probability that genetic mutations have occurred as a process of natural selection is what is falling apart. What is coming to the forefront is that our DNA was essentially designed to evolve in a certain way. This eliminates the argument about if evolution is really happening, because it elimates the probabilities of random mutations - which are astronomical. You keep getting hung up on the idea that somehow ID is an argument against evolution, and some try to make this argument I'm sure. This is not what I am doing at all. What I am saying is there is balance just like in all chemical reactions that work.