Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[Valjean]

I personally propose ID

1. Why is a designer needed, when the current, natural theory is sufficient?
2. What evidence is there of intentional interference?

There is neither need nor evidence of this designer. ID is a desperate attempt to bolster religious doctrine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Paperweights are general -- any small object will do. Sophisticated? Seriously?

Sure! This looks pretty sophisticated:
John Lewis & Partners Glass Swirl Paperweight at John Lewis & Partners

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I personally propose ID

What demonstrable difference would there be between a system arising by ID and a system not arising by ID?

 

[Valjean]

Sure! This looks pretty sophisticated:
John Lewis & Partners Glass Swirl Paperweight at John Lewis & Partners

Nice, but this one is more efficient, and less likely to roll off onto the floor.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Granted there is no controversy on the fact that changes in allele frequency over time, occurs, and universal common descend is not controversial ether.

The controversy is on whether if the process of random genetic change + natural selection account for all (or most) of the diversity that we observe today….agree? yes or no?

Disagree.

Where are the competing theories?

I am sorry if I ignored the rest of your comments, but I feel that you are not understanding my argument. I don’t deny “change over time” nor that we share a common ancestor with other species, my only argument is that weather if the process of random genetic change + natural selection can account for the diversity of life is controversial.

But it isn't. Why do you think it is?

 

[leroy]

Disagree.

Where are the competing theories?

?

I already gave an example “Natrual Genetic Engeneering” as explained by James Shapiro , the fact that his work has been published in PR articles + the fact that his work has never been refuted (nor proven) shows that there are competing theories

 

[leroy]

What demonstrable difference would there be between a system arising by ID and a system not arising by ID?

I would go for discordances in the tree of life, there are many examples of alleged “convergent evolution” where 2 organisms share a similar trait (similar even at a genetic level) One example would be the sonar in dolphins and bats, both organisms have a similar sonar system (same genes) the similarities are not just trivial,. Both organisms share the same genetic material.

For a mechanism like random mutations + natural selection this is very hard to explain because this would imply that 2 independent organisms suffered from the exact same mutations hundreds of times. This mechanism would predict “similar” paths at a superfitial level like in the wings of bats and birds. But not identical paths. (this is like finding a mammals with feathers wich is something that evolutionists always quote as an example of something that would falsify their theory)

From the point of view of ID this is very easy to explain, intelligent designers are not worried about statistical improbability.

Just to be clear the example of bats and dolphins is one of many similar examples, and new examples are constantly being discovered. This was not expected by darwinists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I already gave an example “Natrual Genetic Engeneering” as explained by James Shapiro , the fact that his work has been published in PR articles + the fact that his work has never been refuted (nor proven) shows that there are competing theories

Is it a scientific theory or is it just made up, unsubstantiated nonsense?

I mean, the flat earth theory is a competing idea to a round earth, and that idea has been published in PR articles. It doesn't mean that there is a legitimate scientific "controversy" about the roundness of the earth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would go for discordances in the tree of life, there are many examples of alleged “convergent evolution” where 2 organisms share a similar trait (similar even at a genetic level)

Why would that indicate ID?

One example would be the sonar in dolphins and bats, both organisms have a similar sonar system (same genes) the similarities are not just trivial,. Both organisms share the same genetic material.

And why would that similarity indicate ID?

For a mechanism like random mutations + natural selection this is very hard to explain because this would imply that 2 independent organisms suffered from the exact same mutations hundreds of times.

No, it doesn't, because that's not how evolution works.

Firstly, your language here needs fixing. They didn't "suffer" mutations. Mutations arise naturally and are not always detrimental, so to say that they are "suffered" seems to be misleading language.

Secondly, they don't have to have "the same mutations hundreds of times". They are already different forms with different DNA arrangements, and the forms that can result from these arrangements may produce similar traits.

For starters, your comparison of the two fails because both sonar in bats and dolphins function entirely differently - they don't use the exact same biological mechanism. Bats emit sound-waves from their mouths and noses which bounce back and hit their ears. Dolphins emit clicks from their forehead which travel back and hit fat-filled cavities in their jaws. The two processes are completely different, they just happen to have similar functions.

This isn't indication of anything other than the fact that a particular function may be beneficial to two separate organisms in two separate environments, and the fact that both evolved entirely differently to each other means that they do not require "the same mutations". Clearly, they were completely different mutations giving rise to completely different forms that simply happened to have a similar (although, functionally quite different) traits.

This mechanism would predict “similar” paths at a superfitial level like in the wings of bats and birds. But not identical paths. (this is like finding a mammals with feathers wich is something that evolutionists always quote as an example of something that would falsify their theory)

How is that any different to what evolution predicts? What could be found that would falsify ID?

From the point of view of ID this is very easy to explain, intelligent designers are not worried about statistical improbability.

It's also very easy to explain if you believe a wizard did it with magic.

Just to be clear the example of bats and dolphins is one of many similar examples, and new examples are constantly being discovered. This was not expected by darwinists.

And none of it indicates anything about ID whatsoever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already gave an example “Natrual Genetic Engeneering” as explained by James Shapiro , the fact that his work has been published in PR articles + the fact that his work has never been refuted (nor proven) shows that there are competing theories

Nope, I see that you do not understand peer reviewed journals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would go for discordances in the tree of life, there are many examples of alleged “convergent evolution” where 2 organisms share a similar trait (similar even at a genetic level) One example would be the sonar in dolphins and bats, both organisms have a similar sonar system (same genes) the similarities are not just trivial,. Both organisms share the same genetic material.

For a mechanism like random mutations + natural selection this is very hard to explain because this would imply that 2 independent organisms suffered from the exact same mutations hundreds of times. This mechanism would predict “similar” paths at a superfitial level like in the wings of bats and birds. But not identical paths. (this is like finding a mammals with feathers wich is something that evolutionists always quote as an example of something that would falsify their theory)

From the point of view of ID this is very easy to explain, intelligent designers are not worried about statistical improbability.

Just to be clear the example of bats and dolphins is one of many similar examples, and new examples are constantly being discovered. This was not expected by darwinists.

Citation needed. The fact that they both use their ears, which will have very similar genes is not unexpected. You would need something a lot stronger than that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@leroy , random change also occurs, like in the two toed tribe in Africa, the Vadomas. There was no environmental necessity for that. We were doing fine with five.

John Lewis & Partners Glass Swirl Paperweight at John Lewis & Partners

Evolution can do that, it has done it.

 

[ecco]

Alpha-Centaurians would agree that electromagnetic waves of the appropriate wavelength exist. And that is the case even if they can't see them at all.

For all I know, they would see exclusively in the infrared and have no overlap in their 'visible' range as ours. We can also agree that infrared light exists even though we can't see it.

It was not my intent to allege that Alpha-Centurians could not see certain spectrums of the electromagnetic field.

It was my intent to show that they would not use the word "red" to describe it. Neither do the Germans nor the Russians. A dumb joke at best.

 

[ecco]

You dodged all of the important questions. Where are these Alpha Centaurian brothel districts? What color or other reference do we use for them. How much will it set one back? And what precautions are necessary?

At least someone got part of the joke.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Some people seem to think that a low place in the terrain was created to hold water.

 

[ecco]

Obviously you are all vehement about dispelling the serious consideration that intelligence has always been a part of nature. And you are all vehement about those who have that conviction, even scientists who have this conviction.

What's wrong with being passionate about deeply held, rational beliefs?

I would think there are very few scientists these days that take Genesis literally. That means that if there are a million scientists who believe an eternal entity created everything, then there are a million versions of how the eternal entity created everything.

Even the fundamentalists on this forum do not agree.

If memory serves me correctly, then I am able to know that we were not created by God last Thursday.

You clearly do no understand Last Thursdayism. Last Thursdayism posits that EVERYTHING, including your memories, was created Last Thursday.

Now that I have cleared that up for you, please try to present any evidence that would indicate that Last Thursdayism is false.

 

[ecco]

I have no burden of proof. It's self evident. Nor do I desire someone's homework on the matter.

Sooner or later, this is what every fundamentalist's argument boils down to.

 

[ecco]

I believe our father is in heaven.

Earlier you made a comment "first comes the theory, then comes the evidence". You then asked if that was begging the question.

You have a theory that "our father is in heaven". When are you going to begin posting evidence to support that theory?

 

[sealchan]

Now you're retreating to a first cause argument -- which doesn't address the mechanisms of evolution at all.

Understood. I trust in the T.O.E. myself, but those who don't often dismiss it outright because they see its details as irrelevant given its "limited" scope. Science-minded people get the "not knowing" thing, but less dexterous minds look for one loose stone to consider the entire wall subject to crumbling.

By acknowledging that evolution doesnt understand it's own origin story we can at least consider what that origin story might be. There is a science that is exploring how new systems arise creatively and that is complexity science.

Having thought about this myself I have come to believe that nothing arises from nothing, it can only be said to appear to do so. There is, in fact, no scientific evidence that indicates that this ever happens. Even virtual particles arise out of quantum fields which are not nothing.

But everything does arise out of a something else and that something else is always a physical system.

So for me the theory of evolution describes the progress of species oforganic life forms over time but is systemically intertwined with the biochemical system out of which it has arisen and the biosphere in which it occurs.

The argument to the first causes then is that the theory of evolution simply describes for life forms a systemic process that is true about every other physical system that we know of. And that there appear to be no exceptions to the existence of any physical system or any object in it.

So for me the theory of evolution is almost a template for the whole of a comprehensive science and not just some isolated theory.

 

[ecco]

I personally propose ID

That's about as vague as you can get.
What "Intelligence" "Designed" the Universe?

Beyond that, you need to get from design to implementation. How was the design implemented? Did the Designer just pop everything into existence at one time? Was it done slowly over eons? Did the designer create just two of all animals or did he (she?) (it?) just plop a whole bunch of them on the earth at once?

Do you have any answers to these questions? I have many more.