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

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 21:34:50 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

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

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.

Ok, since we clearly not on the same page explain it to me.  Think of me like a 10 year old that doesn't know the theory of ID (while remembering I am 34 with a scientific background). 

Explain why more proof of branching evolution is an indicator of ID.  Why does branching better fit the thoery of ID?

And the answer can't have anything to do with the modifcation of the theory of evolution or because "pure evolutionists" were wrong.  Modifying the theory of evolution would not be any sort of proof of ID.  Theories are constantly evolving based on new data & would in no way be proof of ID.  A theory being modified or even completely wrong is not in itself proof of an alternate theory.  A theory has to stand on its own with the data. 

So why is branching evidence for ID vs linear?

[Angel!]

Aug 28, 2014 21:40:02 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

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

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.

Oh I understand the math. The math just is irrelevent for the theory of evolution.  The math in no way disproves evolution or proves that this couldn't happen without an outside force.

[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.

I'm not looking for an article interpreting data from a paper.  I am looking for a paper.  Any idiot can interpret a paper & write an article on it, doesn't mean there is any accuracy in the article.  Unfortunately our country doesn't do much in the way of scientific education & you get a lot of nonsense reporting on scientific findings.  That is why it is much better to go to the actual scientists & read their findings.

[Angel!]

Aug 29, 2014 0:38:46 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

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

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.

ID isn't an argument against evolution....I understand that. ID is the creationists attempt to put god into science.

What I'm actually trying to argue is that ID isn't a theory.  A theory needs the ability to be disproven.  The fact you had no answer to my question IMO proves there is no way to disprove ID.  Much in the way there is no way to disprove god.  Literally any scientific finding could be interpreted as further proof of ID.  Unless there is a way to disprove, then it isn't a theory & is just a belief. 

You can go on a belief if it makes you happy.  I have too much faith in science to follow something that isn't a true theory & can never be disproved.  Just because the world is complicated & we haven't figured it all out in no way means that there must be a greater force at work.  It just means we have a lot more research to do to understand the universe.  I've said it before, but it is like having a theory that I have a large invisible dragon in my garage that starts my car.  That is a BS theory because literally nothing could disprove it.  I might believe, but it isn't scientific & we shouldn't pretend it is science.

If I am wrong, then show me how ID is a valid theory.  What evidence or data would disprove ID?

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

First, the article clearly states that the new findings are what ID has been predicting, synonymous condons can lead to different rates of translation that can ultimately impact protein folding and function. So just because the majority of the scientific community has hopped on the natural selection bus, doesn't mean that ID isn't a theory.

In fact, when evolution was first presented, the scientific community dismissed it as pseudo science just like you are trying to do here. Since then the "theory of natural selection" has been changed more than diapers at a baby day-care, which should lead to other lines of thought on the matter. But just like all through history, when the establishment accepts a scientific theory as gospel they will change the results to fit with the accepted theory of the time.

How could ID be disproved? Why does two extra species of human lean towards ID over natural selection? How do I know you don't get the math? Simply, probability. The probably that everything has ended up where it is today without massive amounts of genetic failures all through nature, proves that natural selection is on it's last legs. Again, even neo-darwinists are saying that DNA is far more complex than they ever imagined.

So again. Keep holding onto the "randomness of everything". Just don't be surprised over the next decade when you start hearing from the scientific community that "things appear to have been designed to operate in a certain way. The probability of anything else is just to great.". Kind like when Roger Penrose stated that the initial entropy of the universe is a precise as 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123.

[billisonboard]

Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle:

Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder, "Why, why, why?"

Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.

www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/personal/bokonon.html#calypsos

[Angel!]

Aug 29, 2014 11:45:36 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

First, the article clearly states that the new findings are what ID has been predicting, synonymous condons can lead to different rates of translation that can ultimately impact protein folding and function. So just because the majority of the scientific community has hopped on the natural selection bus, doesn't mean that ID isn't a theory.

No, ID isn't a theory because there is no way for it to be disproved & therefore it isn't testable. A theory absolutely must be testable or it isn't a theory.

How could ID be disproved? Why does two extra species of human lean towards ID over natural selection? How do I know you don't get the math? Simply, probability. The probably that everything has ended up where it is today without massive amounts of genetic failures all through nature, proves that natural selection is on it's last legs. Again, even neo-darwinists are saying that DNA is far more complex than they ever imagined.

You didn't answer how ID could be disproved. Until there is an answer for that, then it isn't a theory.

Second, there has been massive amounts of genetic failures all through nature. Why would you think otherwise? The genetic failures often die & don't go on to reproduce. Somewhere between 15-30% of all fertilized eggs in a human are miscarried very early on. Often this is due to a genetic failure that causes the zygote to fail very early in the process.

Then there are genetic failures that allow the embryo to develop. Sometimes they die later in pregnancy, sometimes as an infant (trisomy 18). Others die later in childhood (tay-sachs). Others can live to adulthood, which is how we have some genetic diseases that get passed on, such as huntingtons. Check out a list of common genetic failures in humans:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

There are tons more that are significantly rarer that haven't happened enough to be listed or named or recognized. It is silly to think there isn't genetic failures, they aren't extremely common, but do happen quite often...as would be expected with the theory of evolution.

[Tennesseer]

Angel! has the patience of a saint.

[Angel!]

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Again, ID could be disproved if the probability that natural selection has lead to the order of the natural world wasn't so astronomical that it's basically impossible. So again, yes ID can be disproved, but each time a new evolutionary branch is added on, the probably grows less likely that natural mutations are the reason for evolution. It's like adding a side to the dice. Instead of 1 in 6 we end up at 1 in 32... Just like how Roger Penrose has put the odds of the universe being created by chance at 1 in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123!

I did say without massive genetic failures makes the probability of natural selection even less probable. I apologize, I was typing quickly and overlooked that mistake. What I meant to say is with. So I'll rephrase. For us to end up where we are today WITH massive genetic failures - like entire species - makes the probability of natural selection even less likely.

Like you pointed out, genetic failures are COMMON. So common - in fact - that the possibility of POSITIVE genetic mutations leading us to where we are today "randomly" happening are diminished even further than just with added branches in the equation. Think about it, almost all the genetic mutations we have ever seen are negative - as you point out - and the majority of positive natural mutations examples we have, have been created inside of a lab by intelligence. A.K.A relative to ID. For instance, Richard Lenski and his E. Coli experiment.

Some math has chances pegged in the billions of trillions that the possibility - in the span of the earth's existence - enough positive mutations could have happened to create the natural world we have today. One that has function from micro organisms to apex predators, with human intelligence in between. Humans are but one small aspect of the world that couldn't function in without things like worms, which are essentially the same as they were hundreds of millions of years ago.

For the last time, I'm not arguing evolution. I'm arguing that natural selection leaves gaps in evolution that are cleared up - in a relative sense - by ID. If you reject ID, regardless of what I am saying, and continue to ignore the God has been part of science longer than God hasn't been part of science, then there is no point waisting any more time on this conversation.

So I'll say it again, dont be surprised that over the next decade the scientific community comes out with the "revalation" that the probability of natural selection is so astronomical it's next to impossible that it's the reason for evolution.

[billisonboard]

Aug 29, 2014 15:50:57 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

... wasn't so astronomical that it's basically impossible. ...

This statement says it is possible.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

That's my point bills, that it is possible to disprove ID. Natural selection is going to have to come up with a home run very soon because it's on its last legs.

[Angel!]

Aug 29, 2014 15:50:57 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Again, ID could be disproved if the probability that natural selection has lead to the order of the natural world wasn't so astronomical that it's basically impossible.

That makes no sense...God can't build something simple? How could simplicity disprove ID? That is like saying a car engine was clearly designed because it is complicated, but paperclips were not designed because they are simple.

Sorry, but that would not disprove ID, try again.

I did say without massive genetic failures makes the probability of natural selection even less probable. I apologize, I was typing quickly and overlooked that mistake. What I meant to say is with. So I'll rephrase. For us to end up where we are today WITH massive genetic failures - like entire species - makes the probability of natural selection even less likely.

Like you pointed out, genetic failures are COMMON. So common - in fact - that the possibility of POSITIVE genetic mutations leading us to where we are today "randomly" happening are diminished even further than just with added branches in the equation. Think about it, almost all the genetic mutations we have ever seen are negative - as you point out - and the majority of positive natural mutations examples we have, have been created inside of a lab by intelligence. A.K.A relative to ID.

You were talking genetic failures, so I pointed them out. A genetic mutation in itself is neither a positive or a negative, although the resulting change can be positive, negative, or neutral. Most genetic mutations are actually neutral, leading to neither a positive or negative result. But, there are tons of positive mutations as well. The entire history of our species is filled with positive mutations - bigger brains being one of the biggest of these.

Genetic mutations that lead to failures generally don't carry through the population because they don't survive & are not carried over into the next generation. They are easy to spot though because the result is sickness or death.

Genetic mutations that are neutral have no impact on the ability to survive & as such carry through the population, but can lead to variety. Think eye color, blood type, etc. The one exception being if the mutation becomes a selecting point for reproducing. These happen today as well, but because of the large size of our population they get lost - extra fingers, missing wisdom teeth, albinoism are obvious examples.

Genetic mutations that are positive increase the likelihood of survival. How much they increase the likelihood of survival will determine how quickly the trait carries through a population.

Here are a few genetic mutations that occur that could be considered positive:

bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

These aren't studied nearly so much and often go unnoticed because they don't result in death like the failures. But, they happen just as much. Now, we aren't evolving as a species right now because we don't have any survival pressures & we have too large of a group for the change to carry though.

But this idea that there are no positive mutations is silly. There are many positive mutations. And in a small population with survival pressures, a positive mutation could carry through the group very quickly.

For the last time, I'm not arguing evolution. I'm arguing that natural selection leaves gaps in evolution that are cleared up - in a relative sense - by ID. If you reject ID, regardless of what I am saying, and continue to ignore the God has been part of science longer than God hasn't been part of science, then there is no point waisting any more time on this conversation.

And I'm arguing that natural selection leaves no gaps. God is not required & ID is not a theory.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Complexity leaves less room for error, aka randomness - the basis of natural selection. Both car engine and paper clip were designed by intelligent beings, neither of which just naturally show up. Aka natural selection produced neither, but since both have a function that is usefully to their creator, it's a point towards ID.

Genetic mutations aren't mostly neutral, that is an assertion made by evolutionary thinking. The majority of mutations that we see naturally occurring are negative - which is why we genetic failures are common. The list of neutral and positive mutations we have observed naturally is very short and very weak - as demonstrated by your link. The negatives far outweigh the positives - per the info the you have posted. I like how the example of Apolipoprotein Al-Milano sates that drugs are in the pipeline to help cure that. Yes, no ID there at all. Increased bone density? Really? That has to do with nutrition more than anything.

Also, there is no actual proof that positive mutations could spread quickly through a population - naturally, this is another baseless assertion. However, as the link you provided points out, an ID could spread a positive mutation quickly. If anything, a positive mutation could take millions of years to work it's way through a population naturally. Which would make the probability of natural selection even less likely, thus the reason that scientist have essentially made up the idea that positive mutations spread quickly.

There is tons of survivalism in our current world. Not in the west, but look at the globe. Without survival instincts billions of people wouldn't survive. If what you're saying is true, then the west is essentially screwed. For that matter up until about 100 years ago, if you didn't survive in the west you didn't live. So aside from the last 100 years there has been tons of survivalism. Your point is invalid, and based on a "silly" assertion that is only relevant to the last 80 year or so of human history.

I get you think natural selection leaves no gaps, but DNA proves you wrong. So believe whatever you want, because in the next 10 years or so, natural selection is going to come undone. As David Klinghoffer noted on the 60th anniversary of the elucidation of molecule..

"Celebrate the Unknowns."

"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."

[Angel!]

Lmao that scientists have made things up but you believe ID is valid. There are lots of positive mutations, I just posted that link because I found them interesting. And yes, we 'see' negative mutations more because they are obvious. Neutral and positive are far less obvious, so we don't see them, but they still occur. You may have a mutation that makes you immune to a bad disease, or better able to process some vitamin, or less likely to get skin cancer, or have greater lung capacity than most, but likely would never know it. These things are positive, but only would be noticed in the right environment.

Survavlism isn't the only key in evolution. You also need a small population or a separated group and we don't have that. So in this day and age you are right positive mutations are not going to go through the population. Doesn't mean they don't happen or that in the right circumstance they couldn't go through the population quickly.

We are far too large and stable of a population. Now if something big happened, we could see it. A disease that wipes out 98% of us would do it. A significant change in our environment that only some are able to survive would do it as well. Those things aren't likely in our lifetime in humans. But, they happened in the past and the survival pressures with small populations have caused positive mutations to move through populations relatively quickly...certainly a lot quicker than millions of years.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I believe in ID because the probability of natural selection is insane, as I have stated now five or six times. But hey, according to you, math has nothing to do with evolution so you just dismiss this point as "silliness". Very scientific of you, dismissing what you don't agree with.

A big viral event, you mean like the black death during the 1300's that people still aren't immune to today? Or was the population still to big at that point for any real positive selection to happen over a 800 year period? Or are the drugs that we design part of the positive selection process in this instance as well? Or wait, are you implying that there has to be an ELE for natural selection to truly work?

No wait you're talking about how societies like the Mormons or the Royal families were essentially inter breeding for thousands of years, you know "keeping their blood lines pure." So they must be more evolved than the rest of us right? Oh but wait, I forgot, inter breeding has be proven to lead to mental defects. Plus if you look at species such as pure bread dogs like the bulldog, inter breeding within a small number of the species there has caused defects in the respiratory system... The list goes on in regards to pure bread dogs and genetic defects...

Oh, and there is the whole genetic diseases thing that you brought up, like Hodgkins. Wouldn't the theory of natural selection just automatically destroy these genes before they are passed onto the next generation? I mean, that is what the theory states, right? That non evolutionary genes will be weeded out naturally over time because the body recognizes them as non evolutionary. Guess you might want to go and let 3rd and 4th generation suffers know that they must be wrong because natural selection should have weeded the disease out already. I guess I better just dismiss that there are roughly 4000 genetic diseases out there because that goes against natural selection as well.

There are tons of scientists out there that are challenging the theory of neutral molecular evolution.. For instance; In a 2010 paper in Annual Reviews of Genomics and Human Genetics, Masatoshi Nei, Yoshiyuki Suzuki, and Masafumi Nozawa, wrote "Because rEHH [another name for the statistical value used to infer selection] (or any other statistic) is affected by random events such as mutation, recombination, gene duplication, and genetic drift, as well as the amount and quality of SNP data, the statistic used is subject to substantial errors. Therefore, a high rEHH value may not necessarily imply selection. ... It is important to have some empirical evidence of selection for each putatively selected genomic region. Until this evidence is presented, the results of these studies remain mere speculationsstraws [M]any recently published papers claim the detection of positive Darwinian selection via the use of new statistical methods. Examination of these methods has shown that their theoretical bases are not well established and often result in high rates of false-positive and false-negative results. ... The finding of positive selection in MHC genes stimulated a number of theoreticians to develop statistical methods for identifying positive selection during the past two decades. These statistical methods have been used by many biologists, and there are now a large number of papers reporting positive selection. In our view many of these methods do not have solid statistical and biological bases. ... A critical review of these statistical methods has shown that their theoretical foundation is not well established and they often give false-positive and false-negative results.."

Honestly, the concept of neutral mutation is an oxymoron anyway. The definition of mutation is to change and the definition of neutral is to stay in one place. I assume your magic dragon car can go fast slow? Or perhaps it can forward reverse when parked?

Natural selection is like grasping at straws at this point because the math doesn't add up. Actuaries can predict the chances of accidents happening over the entire population, the insurance business is built off of it - yet I'm supposed to believe that probability doesn't play into natural selection because, what? The theory of natural selection falls apart when probability is applied to it?

That makes a lot of sense. Don't apply math to a scientific theory because we don't like the outcome. Natural selection is just like any religion that has existed in the history of mankind, and that's why I started this thread here.

Trust in me now, don't you judge or question!

So again. Keep believing in the "randomness of everything". Again, don't be too shocked when the scientific community comes out with the "revelation" that the probability on natural selection is too big of a chance to be accurate. I mean, like you said, Darwin's original theory has changed dramatically over time. Natural selection is the last piece of Darwin's original theory that has yet to fall apart - so it's not like there precedent or anything...

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Some food for thought... 40 points in total.

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design

1] ID is “not science”

On the contrary, as Dr William Dembski, a leading intelligent design researcher, has aptly stated:

“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

At its best, science is an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) and progressive search for the truth about our world based on reasoned analysis of empirical observations. The very antithesis of an unfettered search for truth occurs when scientists don intellectual blinkers and assert dogmatically that all conclusions must conform to “materialist” philosophy. Such an approach prevents the facts from speaking for themselves. The search for truth can only suffer when it is artificially constrained by those who would impose materialist orthodoxy by authoritarian fiat before the investigation has even begun. This approach obviously begs the question, but, sadly, it is all too common among those who would cloak their metaphysical prejudices with the authority of institutional science or the law.

This is especially unfortunate, because just a moment’s reflection is enough to conclude that it is untrue true that science must necessarily be limited to the investigation of material causes only. Material causes consist of chance and mechanical necessity (the so called “laws of nature”) or a combination of the two. Yet investigators of the world as far back as Plato have recognized a third type of cause exists – acts by an intelligent agent (i.e., “design”). Experience confirms beyond the slightest doubt that acts by intelligent agents frequently result in empirically observable signs of intelligence. Indeed, if this were not so, we would have to jettison forensics, to cite just one of many examples, from the rubric of “science.”

Just look all around you. The very fact that you are reading this sentence confirms that you are able to distinguish it from noise.

Moreover, ID satisfies all the conditions usually required for scientific inquiry (i.e., observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion):

1. It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information (CSI).

2. It is a quantitative and internally consistent model.

3. It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.

4. It makes empirically testable and fruitful predictions (see point 4)

2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously

Yes, they do. At its core, design theory is simply the systemization of the common sense intuition (discussed in literature at least as far back as Cicero ~ 50 BC) that effects caused by intelligent agents leave unique traces that can be distinguished from effects caused by chance and necessity. ID theorists build on that powerful intuition using the well-established methods and principles of science and mathematics.

ID theorists are qualified scientists, and they take ID very seriously indeed, as may be seen from this list of peer reviewed and peer-edited papers published in the professional literature. Leading edge ID theorists (Michael Behe, William Dembski, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Dr. Jonathan Wells, and Roger Olsen) have been joined by a follow-on wave of credentialed scientists (e.g. Douglas Axe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Albert Voie, John A. Davison, D.W. Snoke, David Berlinski, Scott Minnich, Stephen Meyer, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, H. Saedler, Granville Sewell, David L Abel, Jack T Trevors, Robert Marks, Kurt Dunston and David KY Chiu, etc.) in developing ID ideas.

Moreover, even scientists who oppose ID take it seriously. Some come to this very site and argue over its merits (we know their names) while others feel so threatened by it, they actually set up websites with the sole intent of attacking it in every way possible. How many websites has the NCSE set up to attack alchemy?

We will be the first to acknowledge that ID does not represent the consensus among scientists at this time. But ID represents a paradigm shift against an established and entrenched scientific orthodoxy, and the history of science is replete with examples of scientific orthodoxies that were hostile to (and sometimes even persecuted) revolutionary thinkers. By definition orthodoxies resist change, even change for the better.

The elevation of philosophical materialism over seeking truth on its own terms is a major reason that a consensus of scientists rejects ID, and why some even go so far as to “expel” ID theorists from their jobs. Therefore, the frequently encountered dismissal of ID practitioners is not so much driven by a fair assessment of the actual quality of their work in light of the best practice methods and principles of science. Instead, it is a manifestation the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

At the end of the day, however, it does not matter if most other scientists object to ID, because science is not settled by majority vote. The history of science makes it abundantly clear that today’s consensus is often tomorrow’s exploded theory, and in the end, scientific ideas stand or fall based on their own merits.

And, that – to be judged on its merits – is all ID asks for.

[Deleted]

Aham, you misunderstand evolution quite a bit. Even Darwin didn't suggest linear progression. We've been reading listening a lot to sources on this subject lately. I can suggest some books... 

Natural selection occurs around us every day... I don't really understand how you could dismiss it? 

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

How? Why? Simple, even ID deniers and atheists naturalists are seeing that natural selection is wrong due to complexity and variation.

www.wired.com/2008/02/complexity-theo/

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527466.100-survival-of-the-fittest-theory-darwinisms-limits.html

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Darwin_Got_Wrong

Now, I have provided links to all of what was asked of me - including multiple peer reviewed papers on the subject, and how ID is a a theory and can be disproved. Since no major scientific breakthroughs are going to be had on this thread, and I have neither the time or energy for this conversation this is the last I'm really going to say on the matter - unless of course a big breakthrough happens either way. If you want to argue about it, I suggest you follow the link provided in the weak arguments against ID post above and talk with minds greater than my own.

That is all, have a nice day.

[Angel!]

Sept 11, 2014 9:17:33 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Now, I have provided links to all of what was asked of me - including multiple peer reviewed papers on the subject, and how ID is a a theory and can be disproved.

I'm sorry, did I miss all those?  I didn't see one peer-reviewed paper about ID.

And from your first link:

Not a religiously inspired revision — intelligent designers need not apply. Nobody suggests that genetic mutation and natural selection aren’t responsible for the evolution of birds from reptiles or humans from tree-swingers.

Not sure how you think this helps your case

I agree with oped that you see to misunderstand evolution.  Nothing you have posted shows that designer is required.  Evolution isn't filled with holes.  Changes in the evolutionary theory since Darwin's time don't suddenly mean that a designer is required. 

[Deleted]

Angel beat me to it... Exactly the passage I wanted to quote. 

The second two links are about the same book... Written by a philosopher and a cognitive scientist... The 2nd link is not the whole article. The wiki includes some if the feedback by scientist who easily refute the ideas posited by the authors, if you read your link... Including: 

Coyne and Kitcher dispute Fodor's "striking claim that evolutionary biologists are abandoning natural selection as the principal, or even an important, cause of evolutionary change" and state that "[t]his is news to us, and, we believe, will be news to most knowledgeable people as well." 

Pigliucci criticises the first part of the book for claiming that 'Darwinism' "put far too much emphasis on external causes of biological change, namely natural selection, and has ignored internal mechanisms", whilst failing to acknowledge that biology has long addressed such internal mechanisms, with Darwin himself "explicitly referring his readers to ‘the laws of correlation of growth’ – that is, to the fact that the internal structure of living organisms imposes limits and direction to evolution". He criticises the second part of the book for raising correlated traits as a new issue when "Biologists have long known aboutthe problem" and have dealt with it:[20]

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne describes this book as "a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection"[21] and "as biologically uninformed as it is strident.",[22] while

In a review in Science Douglas J. Futuyma concluded:

Because they are prominent in their own fields, some readers may suppose that they are authorities on evolution who have written a profound and important book. They aren't, and it isn't.[23]

[Deleted]

Another good rebuke of 'Darwin got it wrong'

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/23/fodor-and-piattelli-palmarini/

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Here is an interesting one.. Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. I'm guessing the 20 pages - or so - of PhDs and Profs from what appears to be every field of science, know very little about evolution via natural selection though.

[Angel!]

A list of scientists who support evolution. This list has the same educational requirements, but also has the humorous requirement that your name be Steve. The list is about twice the size of yours.

ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Since Steve accounts for about 1% of names, then it could be reasoned that if it had been open to all scientists the list would be about 100 times as long. That would make it about 150-200 times longer than the anti-evolutiton list. So maybe 0.7% of scientists dissent from Darwin and most of those aren't even biologists. Frankly I don't see the relevance of a math prof saying evolution isn't real...not exactly his field of study.

[Tennesseer]

The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case determined Intelligent Design is simply Creationism wearing lipstick. You can dress Intelligent Design up all you want but strip it down and it's simply Creationism.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

At one point the list of people that thought the world was flat was far greater than the ones that knew it wasn't.

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry -- and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

-Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

[Tennesseer]

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared. Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'




Ouch!

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Not once anywhere in this thread, has anyone said that evolution doesn't exist or isn't happening - aside from you trying to equate ID and the biblical story of creation that is.. What the Pope said is...

“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

A.K.A, we were created and designed to evolve. But since the pope is a biologist then he must be the authority of the matter... Wait..

[Shooby]

If you woke up in your bedroom tomorrow never having existed , you would look around you bedroom. You would see a dresser , mirror, door frame closet
. It would be evident that these things were purposefully and intelligently created. Same thing with the smoking gun of Creation that some people simply choose not to see. The hand of God is self evident.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Oct 28, 2014 22:24:14 GMT -5 Shooby said:

If you woke up in your bedroom tomorrow never having existed , you would look around you bedroom. You would see a dresser , mirror, door frame closet
. It would be evident that these things were purposefully and intelligently created. Same thing with the smoking gun of Creation that some people simply choose not to see. The hand of God is self evident.

That makes no sense.

You wouldn't wake up ANYWHERE if you never existed. How could that even be remotely possible? If you never existed, you never were.

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.

But evolution is the development (over millenniums) of certain species of apes evolving into humans. No, there weren't any sculpted statues, or a painted ceiling in a chapel, or high-rise structures, or other inventions (electricity, the combustion engine, etc), because 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, we had not evolved or grown in our knowledge and intelligence to where we are today.

Look at the intricate structures in ancient Egypt or Greece. The Great Pyramids for example, are structurally intricate in their geometric perfection.

The Acropolis or Coliseum in Greece (almost perfectly round) or other ancient structures (the Mayan Ruins).

Stonehenge in Scotland is another wonder of the world. Those structures were designed and created by humans. All built many centuries ago.

There was the Stone Age and the Iron Age.

Henry Ford creating the motor car. Now we're in the Electronic Age - and even something like the TV you watch CSI on, has evolved in the last 5 or 6 yrs.

God didn't make that happen. It's research, development and experimentation (and intelligence) which creates what we have today - and what will be tomorrow.

It all started with a spark that created fire - which was ignited by man.

I can only imagine what we (as humans) will create in the future.


.