Different Opinions....Who is right?

[TagliatelliMonster]

And to me, they are evidential proof of a big mystery far beyond science

Why?

 

[Sunstone]

Evolution cannot identify, the next example of evolution, before it appears.

Has it occurred to you that is a feature, rather than a bug? Would you even accept how and why it was a feature if the reason were pointed out to you?

Please. If you want anymore of my time, then don't try to waste it. Do your homework first!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionary theory does not make very good predictions.

You should inform yourself.

Evolution theory makes a bazillion of testable predictions related to genetics, the fossil record, distribution of species, distribution of genetic markers, distribution of anatomical traits, etc etc.

Here's just one example that nicely shows just how much explanatory power, even cross field, this theory really has: the finding of tiktaalik.

The species tiktaalik was completely unknown. No specimen or similar had ever been found. Science knew that long ago, animal life slowly migrated to land from the seas. So at some point over some period, sea vertebrates evolved into land vertebrates / tetrapods. They hypothised the period in which this should have occured.
From the theory flows the prediction that during this period, there should exist fish-tetrapod transitionals. So creatures with both fish as well as tetrapod features. They listed what kind of anatomy features they expected this creature to have.

They took a geological map and looked for a spot with exposed rock from that age AND which was around shallow watters. Shallow waters because they were looking for a creature that was transitioning from sea to land, so it would have been semi-aquatic.

They found such rock. They assembled a team, went to the location and started digging. After relatively little time, they unearthed Tiktaalik. A previously unknown species, with the exact features they expected, found in exactly the location they expected to find it in.

This is just one example of the many, many, many, MANY testable predictions the theory makes. But it's a hugely impressive one. This species was completely unknown and long extinct.

How do you explain that paleontologists did not only know where to look, but were also able to predict what they would find?

It's an amazing prediction and a gigantic success.
And that's just one. The entire phylogenetic tree is a collection of bazillions of confirmed predictions. So is the tree obtained through comparative anatomy of both extant and fossil species. So is the geographic distribution of species of both extant creatures as fossils. And so on and so on.

I don't think there is another theory in science that makes AS MANY predictions as evolution does....

It is better at correlating new observations and then explaining how these also connect to the theory. This is not the same thing as prediction.

Scientific predictions of a theory, aren't like prophecy. They don't necessarily have to happen before the discovery of data. Scientific predictions are more like things that logically follow from the model in question.

It's extra impressive off course if the discovery follows on the prediction, but not at all necessary.

Evolution cannot identify, the next example of evolution, before it appears, That would be a prediction.

No. That would be prophecy.
Evolution can't say which species will evolve 5 million years from now, because engrained in the process are a boatload of random factors, while it is also driven by the enivornment which is also unpredictable in the long run.

Short term however, evolution most definatly is able to predict certain things.
For example, this is why doctors today don't like handing out anti-biotics if it's not really necessary, because through the process of evolution, they understand that in time bacteria will gain immunity.

Saying we will see a new virus strain next year, is like saying it will rain next year. This is not very accurate or useful. This is different from showing the chemical makeup of a new virus, before it appears. That would give evolution more credibility as a predictor. In the current science climate, env with evolutionary theory, when a new virus appears there is an after the fact scramble, as though a mystery has begun.

Scientific theories make predictions about what we should and shouldn't see in the data.
Scientific prediction is not so much about "telling the future".

It is about what kind of data / discovery / evidence is expected and not expected.

For example, evolution theory predicts that closely related species will share more ERV's then further related species.

If you find me a rabbit that shares more ERV's with humans then chimps do, then the science of evolution is going to have a hard time explaining that.

Evolution theory also predicts that if you find a creature with hair, it will be a mammal.

It makes predictions concerning data. Scientific prediction, is not prophecy.

Intelligent Design, in theory, assumes that consciousness can lead genetics. This conscious that is leading is attributed to the consciousness of God. There no reason to believe that God could not make use of the DNA, to trigger and then safety store the needed change.

There is also no reason to think that genetics isn't regulated by inter-dimensional genetic pixies.

You need positive reasons FOR your claim. Not the other way round.
Do you have reasons to think that a god IS tinkering with genetics? If yes, what are those reasons? If no, why even propose it?

If this schema was extrapolated to the creation itself, then insect consciousness, being aware of is surroundings, and its needs for survival, could help trigger a genetic change in its own facade, for defense in a unique environment.

Yet no evidence suggests that at all. All the evidence supports the idea of random mutation followed by selection.

Humming birds, for example, can change their colors to suit the occasion

Which is not evolution.
Evolution is about population genetics over generations. Not about individuals during their lifetime.

This overall affect requires both genes in the DNA and complex wiring to their brains. Their feathers are hollow, and will refract light; rainbow affect, based on the chosen diameter of the hollow, which is subject to their will power. They can alter color or shut the color off. This cascade of connected events shows a connection between the facade and the DNA, mediated by conscious in real time.

Which is not evolution.

It is possible, an insect brain, even without the hollow feathers like the hummingbird, could try to make a change in real time

Please demonstrate your assertion with verifiable evidence that this is possible.

Human females make changes to the facade in other ways, based on visualization in the mirror. The creative female will imagine a new look to fit the occasion.. Or the child may imagine themselves as invisible. They do not have the output mechanism, but they do have the impulse to try. This may translate to body language that places then under the radar of the adults.

Which is not evolution either.

 

[Etritonakin]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

DNA-based evolution overall -in and of itself -IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER -but is not AWARE that it is such.

As our own example shows, it can also be affected at any time by creative activity.

Some say there can be no proof of an overall self-aware, creative, intelligent designer if one is absent, but purposefully-created things have characteristics which prove they are such -even if the creator is absent.

We say something can be known to be designed/created if it is different than what we call "nature" would produce.
However, if we are considering the present, extremely complex and dynamic, state of nature, it must be referenced against the most simple state possible -or, at the very least, pre-"nature" nature (pre-singularity) -in order to determine what was necessary at any point to produce the present state.

Some things must precede and produce self-awareness, intelligence and creativity -and some things must be preceded by such. The development of self-awareness, intelligence and creativity is a naturally-occuring intermediate stage. That would be true at any level, as that which now exists is the same which did exist -but in a different arrangement. (Such would actually mean that pure "evolution" -in its broadest sense -would be more true of "God" -or whatever one might call the original -than anything resulting from the characteristics of the elements.)

That which must be preceded by such indicate forethought, specific purpose, etc.
If you reference even "just" the periodic table -produced by the very specific and data-packed singularity/big bang which turned what was into what is -which makes all of this possible -against the most simple possible state, it is not difficult to realize it required such -and mind-bogglingly more than a set of Legos -which many would have no problem realizing were created.



(just thinking... DNA-based Evolution itself cannot consciously predict what it will do, but, in the absence of creative activity, there are no true variables overall. Application of true conscious decision is where inevitability ceases to be true.)

 

[Valjean]

DNA-based evolution overall -in and of itself -IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER -but is not AWARE that it is such.

As our own example shows, it can also be affected at any time by creative activity.

Some say there can be no proof of an overall self-aware, creative, intelligent designer if one is absent, but purposefully-created things have characteristics which prove they are such -even if the creator is absent.

We say something can be known to be designed/created if it is different than what we call "nature" would produce.
However, if we are considering the present, extremely complex and dynamic, state of nature, it must be referenced against the most simple state possible -or, at the very least, pre-"nature" nature (pre-singularity) -in order to determine what was necessary at any point to produce the present state.

Some things must precede and produce self-awareness, intelligence and creativity -and some things must be preceded by such.

That which must be preceded by such indicate forethought, specific purpose, etc.



(just thinking... Evolution itself cannot consciously predict what it will do, but, in the absence of creative activity, there are no true variables overall. Application of true conscious decision is where inevitability ceases to be true.)

Please cite an example of something with a characteristic that proves intelligent design.

 

[PureX]

If existence did not express intelligent design, science could not explore how it's happening.

 

[HonestJoe]

Please let us consider China might have committed bio-terrorism as evident by having closed off Wuhan to other parts of China while allowing SARS-Cov2 infected international flights out of Wuhan to Europe and America.

I regret defending you. @exchemist was right to call this off-topic in this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but purposefully-created things have characteristics which prove they are such -even if the creator is absent.

I agree.
Life though, doesn't have any such characteristics.

We say something can be known to be designed/created if it is different than what we call "nature" would produce.

Not exactly.
We can know something is designed / created, if it bears marks of artificial manipulation and/or manufacturing.

Take the pyramids. Pyramid builders are no longer around. And in fact for a very long time, we had no clue how they managed to create them.
But we know they were created. How? Because it bears all the hallmarks of manufacturing. We even found the quarries where they carved out the blocks of rock they used. The stones themselves show signs of carving (as opposed to erosion) etc.

See, this is the thing...
How do we recognise eroded rock? Simple. We know what erosion is and thus we understand what type of evidence that process leaves behind.
We also understand what carving is and we understand what type of evidence carving leaves behind.

This is how we can differentiate between a rock formation that is the result of erosion and a formation that is the result of carving.


Life, does not bear any such hallmarks of manufacturing.

 

[Valjean]

I agree.
Life though, doesn't have any such characteristics.



Not exactly.
We can know something is designed / created, if it bears marks of artificial manipulation and/or manufacturing.

Take the pyramids. Pyramid builders are no longer around. And in fact for a very long time, we had no clue how they managed to create them.
But we know they were created. How? Because it bears all the hallmarks of manufacturing. We even found the quarries where they carved out the blocks of rock they used. The stones themselves show signs of carving (as opposed to erosion) etc.

See, this is the thing...
How do we recognise eroded rock? Simple. We know what erosion is and thus we understand what type of evidence that process leaves behind.
We also understand what carving is and we understand what type of evidence carving leaves behind.

This is how we can differentiate between a rock formation that is the result of erosion and a formation that is the result of carving.


Life, does not bear any such hallmarks of manufacturing.

This is just a variation of the thoroughly debunked watchmaker's hypothesis.
There is a well established mechanism to account for biological diversity. No appeal to magic poofing is warranted.

 

[exchemist]

Please let us consider China might have committed bio-terrorism as evident by having closed off Wuhan to other parts of China while allowing SARS-Cov2 infected international flights out of Wuhan to Europe and America.

Knowing the Virus Was Spreading, China Shut Down Domestic Travel to and From Wuhan, Did NOT Stop International Flights

I suggest you look up the meaning of terrorism. And if you want me to take the links you post seriously, please quote reputable sources. Something called "Red State" is hardly likely to be unbiased, now, is it?

 

[Windwalker]

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

Nature doesn't fluke. It adapts for survival. One could call that intelligent, through a process of trial and error to arrive at a goal of surviving. But that's not the same as suggesting that it intended from the outset to develop that one particular solution to that one particular need.

Nature is creative in problem solving. It's built into it by default. One could call that an inherent intelligence, which I would. But to call that one particular solution that nature came up with as intentionally designed by some external agent (supposedly God) from outside itself, from the very outset as how the end result now appears, simply does not fit the data.

To impose that notion of an external agent, deliberately designing that one particular species of butterfly to resemble an oak leaf specifically, cannot be supported by the facts we observe. We can see adaptation taking place right in front of our eyes, without a supernatural agent intervening on its behalf. Rather, it is "supplied" with the means to solve its own survival needs though creative solutions it comes up with on its own, which is then passed on out to others to follow.

I personally see that entire process a miracle of Life in and of itself. I personally see evolution is the miracle. The survival impulse is the Designer, and evolution is the Intelligence to figure out how to make that happen. The natural systems, are what they are doing what science sees them doing. But these natural systems in themselves, are a miracle.

To ignore science or to deny its validity in an effort to preserve one's theological notions about God, is to me, to deny God itself, and ignore the miracle of evolution, which itself, is how creation from God happens in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolutionary theory does not make very good predictions. It is better at correlating new observations and then explaining how these also connect to the theory. This is not the same thing as prediction.

Evolution cannot identify, the next example of evolution, before it appears, That would be a prediction. Saying we will see a new virus strain next year, is like saying it will rain next year. This is not very accurate or useful. This is different from showing the chemical makeup of a new virus, before it appears. That would give evolution more credibility as a predictor. In the current science climate, env with evolutionary theory, when a new virus appears there is an after the fact scramble, as though a mystery has begun.

Intelligent Design, in theory, assumes that consciousness can lead genetics. This conscious that is leading is attributed to the consciousness of God. There no reason to believe that God could not make use of the DNA, to trigger and then safety store the needed change. If this schema was extrapolated to the creation itself, then insect consciousness, being aware of is surroundings, and its needs for survival, could help trigger a genetic change in its own facade, for defense in a unique environment.

Humming birds, for example, can change their colors to suit the occasion. This overall affect requires both genes in the DNA and complex wiring to their brains. Their feathers are hollow, and will refract light; rainbow affect, based on the chosen diameter of the hollow, which is subject to their will power. They can alter color or shut the color off. This cascade of connected events shows a connection between the facade and the DNA, mediated by conscious in real time.

It is possible, an insect brain, even without the hollow feathers like the hummingbird, could try to make a change in real time. Some critters will stop moving to appear invisible. Physical changes cannot happen, in this case, since that insect lacks the output mechanism. However, the very attempt to change, will have an impact earlier in the potential camouflage train to the DNA. The hummingbird had to start somewhere.

Human females make changes to the facade in other ways, based on visualization in the mirror. The creative female will imagine a new look to fit the occasion.. Or the child may imagine themselves as invisible. They do not have the output mechanism, but they do have the impulse to try. This may translate to body language that places then under the radar of the adults.

There is no reason to believe that god(s) did anything, unless and until we have evidence to indicate that god(s) exist and that said god(s) does/did the things being claimed.

 

[Katzpur]

Another reason could be that an intelligent being used evolution as the process to create these things?

I'll go with that.

 

[Windwalker]

The Theory of Gravity is not challenged because it doesn't contradict the Bible or other religious books.

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.​

 

[exchemist]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.​

I loved this. It's really very cleverly done. I especially enjoyed this bit:

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants."

P.S. I'm afraid whenever I come across Oral Roberts I find it hard not to speculate as to whether he may have had a colleague called Anal Edwards. Whatever happened to the missionary position?

 

[Thief]

I cannot understand how anyone might suggest that evolution proceeds purely by 'fluke', if that is what is being suggested here. It would be simply mind-boggling that anyone could do that and still believe they were discussing evolution.

if not by fluke....and I don't believe it is

then by craft

 

[izzy88]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

If you're arguing that there must be an intelligence behind the processes of nature, I'm all for exploring that idea. But if you're arguing for spontaneous creation as opposed to evolution, you're ignoring a great deal of very clear science.

 

[Thief]

To escape another design?

yes....of course
to escape sharp eyed predators

 

[MNoBody]

adaptation is evident everywhere, species adapt and change somewhat given the environmental conditions, which is obvious to any that look.
the idea of evolution though implies a change in kind, where random amino acids would be compelled by some unknown "natural" program to morph from one lower kind into a higher kind, for purposes unknown....for no apparent reason.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

Nature did these, soulless Mother Nature, accidentally created diverse and beautiful beings. Everyone knows macro-Evolution is not only godless but soulless.