[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Without evidence through observation and deductive reasoning you have nothing to teach other than hogwash.

...and a little civility. olePigeon I'm honestly a little surprised by your tone. Two people can view the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. This happens in science. What I gleaned from f1000's post was that there's no reason to view evolution as strictly anti-religion and oppose it with this mindset. I agree with him on this. There are a great many Christians who have absolutely no questions on the validity of evolution and that's just as well for them. Let's say that you're correct and ID in it's own right is nothing, but quackery okay? There is absolutely nothing dangerous about the challenges they pose and if nothing more than to shut them up, trust me, science will continue to move forward. In fact, it's these motivations that will move it further, faster IMHO. It will increase awareness and funding for both and there will be massive gains in understanding within the next 5 - 10 years I truly believe this.

It's not a horrible comparison, Intelligent Design and Creation supports can claim all they want. What they can't do is prove anything or provide a shred of evidence to support their claim.

One of the main qualms I think each side has with the other is what constitutes reasonably conclusive evidence.

You can stick it up there with Bigfoot and Nessy, because that's all it is. Unsubstantiated claims with no direct evidence or proof.

Interestingly, this is the same argument some scientists, many ID-ists, and most Creationists make against evolution.

If you wanna "learn" about intelligent design and creation, go to Church. Don't bring that crap into the schools.

I agree with this in fact, Churches, parochial schools, and other religious institutions don't spend near enough time talking about evolution and ID. Perhaps if they did, proponents of ID wouldn't feel it so necessary to get ID into public schools. That said, I think young, budding scientists should also be reminded and encouraged to remain critically analytical. Evolution may be just the right exercise.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by macamac

They actually have photos of NESSE.

Those Egyptians, Hindus etc have images of their gods and stories of the roles they played.

You have no evidence they don't exist.

Or is it myth, science fiction, like ID?

ID isn't science. It's science fiction.

It's like Star Wars, The Force.

[macamac]

You mean they have pictures ON FILM? Wow...

No, it's like a 35mm Slide.

It isn't a guy in a bigfoot costume...

[macamac]

See.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by macamac

See.

Holy Crap that's it!!! I love those pictures.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

First evidence of fantasy I saw here!

More evidence for Nessie than ID!

Even if it's fake too.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asking how one could assert with certainty that a "god" would employ the same principles of design that man would use? A good question, but I can't be clear enough about this f1000 because I think "god" is where we might be inclined to activate our imaginations and I don't want to beat an old point into the ground, but ID is not about a God necessarily.

You’re skirting the issue, ebuddy. Let’s not use God. Let’s not even use Intelligent Designer. Let’s use Santa Claus instead.

How can you know how Santa Claus would create life, a priori? Did Santa Claus leave you his lab notebook? Did you look over his shoulder as he was creating a paramecium? Did he even have a shoulder? Are you Santa Claus?

How to put this... Early scientists moved from guessing to learning. They were able to move away from a dogmatic "belief" into solid knowledge based on their premise that God was methodical and deliberate. They thought that if they could learn more about how He did it, they might learn more about Him. ID is a little different in that it is simply pointing to evidence and saying; "look, this is simply what evidence looks like. It looks designed." To be really fringe f1000, you might even believe the god assigned agents to conduct work I mean I really don't know and wouldn't try to assert anything as factual for sure. In short, you're right, I don't know that you can claim a priori that this is how a god or even an Intelligent Agent, if you will, would engineer life.

Scientists have never moved away from guessing. A hypothesis is often nothing more than a learned guess. A scientific hypothesis, however, is testable; speculations on the behavior of an Intelligent Designer are not. With regard to the latter, we might as well be debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I might argue that many claims regarding molecular evolution cannot be made a priori though.

Please elaborate.

I don't think ID is guilty of circular reasoning, I might say they're guilty of "fallacy of many questions" and would argue that evo-biologists are guilty of this as well. This is why very little regarding molecular evolution should be considered a priori.

ID, as you have described it, is certainly guilty of the fallacy of many questions, but I decided to give ID the benefit of the doubt by only faulting it for circular reasoning.

Again, please elaborate on how evo-biologists are guilty of the fallacy of many questions. Also, explain what you mean by your last sentence.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

How plausible is this though? I agree that we can still predict this to be so, but have not shown adequately how this occurs.

Gene transfer has been demonstrated in the lab and elucidated in great detail. Here's an online textbook article on the subject. Here's a popular science article on it as well: Where Bacteria Get Their Genes

Scientists and biotech companies regularly use phage vectors, for example, to insert genes into host bacteria. These people are using theories and technologies that you question to create new products, weapons, and treatments for diseases.

The logical argument that I’m trying to make is that prediction #3 can be explained by natural mechanisms. Unless you can prove that all natural explanations are false (and not just because they're difficult for you to understand), you cannot claim that supernatural intervention is the only explanation for the observation that genes and "functional parts” are conserved across species.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination. Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

W.R. Thompson; “This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to defend scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credibility with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

These testimonials don’t refute my alternate explanations for ID prediction #3.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Stephen J. Gould; “Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable robots) is self-serving mythology” (Natural History, February 1994, page 14).

Professor of paleontology at Johns Hopkins University Steven Stanley, “The known fossil record fails to document a single morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model of Darwinism can be correct. Doubts about gradualistic evolution have been for long years suppressed.”

Niles Eldridge, evolutionist and colleague of Gould, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life, the fossils, supports the story of gradual adaptive change, all the while knowing that it does not.”

Ecologist Ed Deevey wrote in The Yale Review: “Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within the larger circle of closely related species, such as wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs”

You’re quoting these scientists grossly out of context. None of their statements either supports ID or refutes evolution. Deevey, for example, is simply explaining that selective breeding primarily works with existing alleles.

In any case, these quotes don’t refute my alternate explanations for ID prediction #3.

We have to account for the process by which these complex organisms evolved, it's not enough to say they may have by vector transferrence, conservation, and convergent evolution. Until we do, IMHO we haven't sufficiently yet-then we're acting in faith either way.

This statement doesn’t refute my alternate explanations for ID prediction #3.

Then there are more aggressive Creationists or "proponents of ID" who make statements like; "The future, to an evolutionist, is full of promise. With enough research, we will eventually decipher all the secrets of the cell, mutations, and how life came to be -- without invoking a Creator God. But if people want to spend their time investigating concepts like self-tying ropes and self-shooting bullets which kill people, then I won't stand in their way."

I haven’t the faintest clue what you’re talking about.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In other words, if proponents of ID, while we were still considering "junk DNA" as factual had said, "we should find that 'Junk DNA' is not junk at all, but in some cases quite valuable, because of the work of the designer" Then, we come to find that really it's not so much that it's "junk DNA" as it is determining the usefulness of seemingly "junk DNA" (which is what we're finding), then it's not circular reasoning. It's a prediction made plausible by advanced knowledge through study.

Your original hypothesis was:

POSTULATE: Intelligent designers typically do not create completely functionless parts.

PREDICTION: Therefore, there will be little if any "useless" junk in biology like vestigial organs or supposedly functionless DNA.

If we translate this into a premise and conclusion:

PREMISE: We observe no functionless parts in biology.

CONCLUSION: Intelligent Designers must have created all the parts. FALSE.

You never defined Intelligent Designers as being the creators of ALL biological parts. You only stated that Intelligent Designers, when they create parts, typically do not create functionless ones.

This leaves open the logical possibility that some parts may have evolved, or been created in a stellar explosion, or bubbled up from geysers, etc. The only conclusion that you can come to based on your postulate and premise is that Intelligent Designers must not have created any functionless parts.

CONCLUSION: Intelligent Designers must not have created any functionless parts.

The problem with this is that we cannot prove that Intelligent Designers do anything (a priori), so the conclusion involves a fallacy of many questions. To get around this fallacy, I eliminated the Intelligent Designer from the argument to get,

CONCLUSION: Functionless parts must not have been created.

This is a true statement, but it's already presupposed from the premise; hence, my argument that this is circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by buddy

I think if we dug around a little, we'd probably be able to find several examples of popular science using circular reasoning.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Why not Ptah or Tiamat? If you want to stick God in there, I say stick 'em all in. The Earth was sh*tted out the orifice of a giant dragon. It's just as likely.

Please define Ptah, Tiamat, and this anally precocious giant dragon. Define God, or at least your understanding of IT, as well.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by f1000

You’re skirting the issue, ebuddy. Let’s not use God. Let’s not even use Intelligent Designer. Let’s use Santa Claus instead.
How can you know how Santa Claus would create life, a priori? Did Santa Claus leave you his lab notebook? Did you look over his shoulder as he was creating a paramecium? Did he even have a shoulder? Are you Santa Claus?

We won't use any of the above then.

Scientists have never moved away from guessing. A hypothesis is often nothing more than a learned guess. A scientific hypothesis, however, is testable; speculations on the behavior of an Intelligent Designer are not. With regard to the latter, we might as well be debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If what you're trying to say is that the concepts of ID do not interest you, I understand. I've got it.

Please elaborate.

I'm not sure you've been reading my posts f1000. I have the gut felling that to continue posting would probably be fruitless at this point. For one thing, I addressed your point in an honest manner only to come back and read about Santa Claus and angels dancing on the heads of pins. I was answering your questions honestly f1000, Unfortunately, you've made it obvious to me that in several days this is all you could come up with. At some point I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and call it a day.

Now regarding the rest of your questions, read the last 4 or 5 posts of mine in which I copy-pasted arguments made by proponents of evolution, their problems with it, and the other hypothesis they present to work around these problems and why macro-evolution is not testable. There are several aspects to what constitutes sound science as I've listed and while ID fails at 1 (supernatural) and for that reason should not be included; macro-evolution fails at 3 and should not be included. What I can say for certain is you will likely disagree with this, but if you could cite some experiments in which macro-evolution was tested and affirmed, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

ID, as you have described it, is certainly guilty of the fallacy of many questions, but I decided to give ID the benefit of the doubt by only faulting it for circular reasoning.
Again, please elaborate on how evo-biologists are guilty of the fallacy of many questions. Also, explain what you mean by your last sentence.

I already have f1000 and I'm not alone. Evolutionist Francisco Ayala stated: "A hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience ... A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science."

Evolutionists Ehrlich and Birch on evolution: "Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus outside of 'empirical science,' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have been accepted by most of us as part of our training."
Don't take it from me f1000, take it from them. This is what I appreciate most about scientists, they're generally painfully honest.

Biologist, Hubert P. Yockey, Chief of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Reactor Branch on evolution: "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."
He is not alone in this either.

Physicist, H.S. Lipson on evolution; "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit within it."

You have to ask yourself whether you're less critical of the theory than these proponents of it are. At the end of the day there is one simple fact; if you wholly reject the concepts of ID, you are not doing it with scientific reason. If you wholly accept evolution, you are not doing it with scientific reason. Philosophical differences indeed play an active role in what we view as evidence supporting a theory. We can argue about this until the cows come home, but ultimitely this is a question of what you believe, not what you know. To ignore this is to be dishonest. A theist will find "evidence" of ID interesting. An atheist-leaning or agnostic will find "evidence" of ID detestable. How would I know which is which? By the arguments made.

f1000, I'm asking an honest question here; are you or are you not an atheist or agnostic?

[macamac]

Hey that's real!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The boundaries of natural science are indeed limited to natural phenomena...but you can't use one template for acceptable science and decide arbitrarily that one fits only because it's entirely natural.

It seems your two statements in the same post are contradictory. I would indeed say that one template for (natural) science is unacceptable exactly because it is not entirely natural. The only way I can think to reconcile your contradiction is if you don't consider biology to be included in "Natural Science." Is that your position?

We have to consider the difference between micro and macro evolution as well then. One regards variety within a species (observed) and the other discusses the creation of new genetic material. (never observed)

Never observed? What say you about the development of antibiotic resistances? Surely those are genetically based, and are novel. For that matter, what of the differences between breeds of dog, or the sum differences between dogs and wolves (the former widely believed to be domesticated from the latter solely by changing the selective pressure on the species). What's wrong with these as examples of new genetic material?

If you insist on teaching one, perhaps others should insist on teaching the other.

Actually, I'm all for it. Let's carve out a land for some medieval-style laws and let the grand experiment begin. Take Kansas, say, and let loose with the teaching of creationism, the banning of abortion, witch hunts if they so desire, inquisitions, the whole shebang, and just see what happens. I'm serious; live and let live. Current residents who wish to remain in the 21st century should be given time to move to Nebraska first of course.

Cross breeding and hybridization have taught us a great deal about these limitations. The sugar beet for example has been manipulated in a labratory for over 70 years yet we are not able to get more than 17% sugar content from these beets. We went from 5%, to 8% to 13% and have remained at 17% ever since. Why? Because there is a limit to adaptation.

What makes you think the limit is on adaptation (and not on mechanics for example)? If it weren't for this alleged limit to adaptation, how much of a sugar beet should be composed of sugar in your view? 100%?

Several researchers have blamed gene transfer between diverse bacterial species, and even gene transfer between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Many evolutionists are now suggesting that gene transfers were so common in the past (a convenient non-provable hypothesis) that a tree of life for microbial species can never be discerned from existing species. Such proposals remove evolutionary theory from being tested, and remove it from scientific criticism.

I seem to remember you scorning gene transfer in the past as well. Is it because you don't believe it happens or because you think it's being used to cover up any and all discrepencies found in the theory of evolution? If the former, I have to say you're wrong; it's not only observed in labs but it's used (constantly) as a tool for other experiments. If the latter, it would indicate that genomics might not be a useful tool for experimenting on evolution, but it hardly means evolution is untestable; one could still do experiments to try to replicate evolutionary jumps. Those experiments would just take a lot longer than most people are willing to wait.

I wholly disagree with this UncleSkeleton because what we observe is a limitation to adaptation. Even in a controlled labratory this will never happen. You can disagree, but then I'm using evidence, experimentation, and obervation to support my statement. You could not.

The beets? Is that what you're talking about? Do you have a link to that? I'd like to read more about it, please.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It seems your two statements in the same post are contradictory. I would indeed say that one template for (natural) science is unacceptable exactly because it is not entirely natural. The only way I can think to reconcile your contradiction is if you don't consider biology to be included in "Natural Science." Is that your position?

I didn't make myself clear enough. I should've said, just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's natural science. It still has to be empirically scientific. It still has to be testable.

Never observed? What say you about the development of antibiotic resistances?

adaptation, no new genes created.

For that matter, what of the differences between breeds of dog

Well...they're still dogs. We're not talking about the differences between dachsunds and dobermans, we're talking about the differences between dobermans and fruit bats.

or the sum differences between dogs and wolves (the former widely believed to be domesticated from the latter solely by changing the selective pressure on the species). What's wrong with these as examples of new genetic material?

For a more succinct reply, you could maybe consult some of the proponents of evolution who claim it's not scientifically grounded, it's philosophical. For whatever reason, the above are not compelling enough examples of speciation. In fact, they go on to say that there are to date, no reasonably conclusive examples. What do you know that these professors somehow missed???

Actually, I'm all for it. Let's carve out a land for some medieval-style laws and let the grand experiment begin. Take Kansas, say, and let loose with the teaching of creationism, the banning of abortion, witch hunts if they so desire, inquisitions, the whole shebang, and just see what happens.

Can you please explain what any of the above have to do with one another??? If these are the traits you equate to scientists and many others who disagree with you, you'd do well to assess your character more, and assassinate theirs a little less.

I'm serious; live and let live.

actually, I was kind of hoping you were kidding. Especially using the template you provide. Folks that have a difficult time presenting their views without ad hominem attacks are usually those who know little and fear much, though for the life of me can't determine what it is you're so afraid of???

What makes you think the limit is on adaptation (and not on mechanics for example)? If it weren't for this alleged limit to adaptation, how much of a sugar beet should be composed of sugar in your view? 100%?

You can deny conventional wisdom, but generally what we observe through experiment, cross breeding and hybridization is a limit to adaptation, not anything else Uncle, adaptation. We're still learning this, but a good start might be;

POPULATION GENETICS: LIMITS TO ADAPTATION
Introduction: Organisms are generally assumed to exhibit traits that are adaptive to the specifics of the environment in which they are found, as a result of natural selection. Some studies have indicated, however, that certain traits appear to be maladaptive, yet they are maintained within a population. This maladaptation may be a result of genetic constraints (such as a trait that is genetically correlated with another trait that is changing under selection), recent or fluctuating changes in selective pressures, conflicts between natural selection and sexual selection (for example, the long tail feathers of male peacocks), or gene flow (the movement of genes between two or more populations). The latter is the focus of this module.

Importance: The role of gene flow in limiting adaptation has been debated by biologists. However there is evidence from field and lab experiments to indicate that gene flow can be an important factor, and may help explain the persistence of maladaptive traits in some populations.

I seem to remember you scorning gene transfer in the past as well. Is it because you don't believe it happens or because you think it's being used to cover up any and all discrepencies found in the theory of evolution? If the former, I have to say you're wrong; it's not only observed in labs but it's used (constantly) as a tool for other experiments. If the latter, it would indicate that genomics might not be a useful tool for experimenting on evolution, but it hardly means evolution is untestable; one could still do experiments to try to replicate evolutionary jumps. Those experiments would just take a lot longer than most people are willing to wait.

.



The beets? Is that what you're talking about? Do you have a link to that? I'd like to read more about it, please.[/QUOTE]

[ebuddy]

The beets? Is that what you're talking about? Do you have a link to that? I'd like to read more about it, please.

http://www.isds.duke.edu/computing/S...s/node142.html
Fisher's Sugar Beet Data

http://www.sucrose.com/lbeet.html
How Beet Sugar is Made - the Basic Story has the story of sugar beets.

http://www.sucrose.com/
Imperial Sugar Company has the various brands, history and FAQ.

http://www.imperialholly.com
Imperial Holly Corporation

http://www.maffra.net.au/beetm2/index.htm
Maffra Sugar Beet Museum has information about this museum.

http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?ti=02910000
Sugar Beet information and images from Encarta.

http://www.fb.com/views/focus/fo98/fo1026.html
Sugar Beets - A Sweet Proposition is an article about sugar beets.

http://www.sbreb.org/brochures/SugarCoop/index.htm
Southern Minnesota Sugar Cooperative has Facts about sugarbeets and beet sugar.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

links to sugar beets

Did you even check any of those links?

Anyway, if you want to play the limits to adaption game (while citing only 1 example which we have gone over before) that is fine. Lets expand a little.

I am assuming you concur adaption is a real mechanism of evolution (or god) then? (and you know what evolution I am talking about, but just to be clear the evolution of the micro-kind as you will cal it)

On humanoid evolution, this has been studied by me personally recently:
(And this is the interesting bit for those following at home)

----

Gorillas have all of the genetic mechanisms required to synthesize vitamin C. In fact, they have the exact same genetic mechanisms found in all .mammals. However, that mechanism is broken, a single mutation seems to have disabled it. Fortunately, a Gorilla’s diet includes natural sources of vitamin C, so they don’t really miss that ability.

Chimpanzees have all of the genetic mechanisms required to synthesize vitamin C. In fact, they have the exact same genetic mechanisms found in all .mammals. However, that mechanism is broken, a single mutation seems to have disabled it. Fortunately, a Chimpanzee’s diet includes natural sources of vitamin C, so they don’t really miss that ability.

Orangutans have all of the genetic mechanisms required to synthesize vitamin C. In fact, they have the exact same genetic mechanisms found in all .mammals. However, that mechanism is broken, a single mutation seems to have disabled it. Fortunately, an Orangutan’s diet includes natural sources of vitamin C, so they don’t really miss that ability.

Humans have all of the genetic mechanisms required to synthesize vitamin C. In fact, they have the exact same genetic mechanisms found in all .mammals. However, that mechanism is broken, a single mutation seems to have disabled it. Fortunately, a Human’s diet includes natural sources of vitamin C, so they don’t really miss that ability.

Ok, kinda interesting so far, but you haven’t gotten to the good stuff yet.

There are probably a billion different ways to break the genetic mechanism used to synthesize vitamin C. Mutations are all essentially random, so all of these billion breakages are equal in probability. So, here is the kicker: all primates have the exact same mutation in their vitamin C synthesizing genes, in the exact same location. The odds of this occurring by random mutation separately in all primates, and only primates, is simply astronomical.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that DNA is inherited. We know for a fact that mutations are passed down to descendants. We know for a fact that mutations can cause the DNA to change over time, which results in changes to the body. We also know that primates are called primates because they share essentially the same body plan, they have a collection of features shared by no other group of living creatures.

Given these facts, plus the observation of the same location of the flaw in vitamin C making genes, produces the strong conclusion that primates share common ancestry, and that this particular mutation happened once in a common ancestor. This conclusion is simply a trillion times more likely than the alternative, which would be multiple independent occurrences of the same exact mutation.

Hmm, did you notice that the first four paragraphs of this post are virtually identical? Did you notice that each one has a typo in the second sentence, an extra ‘.’ right before the word mammals? Now, I’ll tell you right now that this post was created in a word processor, where Cut & Paste is a well-known feature. So, what are the odds that I copied the first paragraph four times, and the error was in the original paragraph? What are the odds that I typed each paragraph from scratch, and simply happened to make the same error each time? What are the odds that I’m trying to deceive you, typing each paragraph from scratch but inserting the same error in the same place just to make you think I copied it?

Since the gene is non-functional, further mutations don't have any effect at all, they are neutral. By tracing these further mutations, we can thus determine how the relationship between us and the other primates is exactly. Surprise, surprise:

We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).

EDIT: I really shouldn't have posted because I don't have ANY time to respond, but I will try my best if there is anything worthy

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by f1000

Please define Ptah, Tiamat, and this anally precocious giant dragon. Define God, or at least your understanding of IT, as well.

Ptah is the Egyptian god that helped create the Earth. Tiamat is the Babylonian god that created the Earth. "God" (Jahova) is the Christian/Judain god that created the Earth. They're all mythical entities that different cultures believed created the Earth.

Personally, since I grew up a Christian, I'd be more fascinated with the other mythologies and their take on how the world was created. But I don't think any of them should be taught next to evolution.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

adaptation, no new genes created.

Sort of wrong. Bacteria can get new genes from other bacteria. So they do in fact get new genes, which they then pass on to their clones.

[ebuddy]

Horizontal evolution, you simply cannot cite an example of vertical evolution or macroevolution. They having "gotten new genes" does not necessarily equate to evolution. It is still the same bacteria, but even this is questionable. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati; "A population of microbes becomes resistant to antibiotics because of a loss of genetic information or a transfer of information between microbes. But in no case have bacteria become resistant through a gain of new information." In fact, because of the rate at which bacteria multiply they would seem to be a good illustration of evolution. Producing many generations in a day, within a matter of months should show us the equivalent of millions of years of evolution yet remarkably, they remain unchanged from what we knew of them 100 years ago and in fact are identical to fossilized bacteria.

Regarding the chimp-man anomoly, why haven't we found any reasonably conclusive evidence of this transition in the fossil record? It's certainly not because we haven't been looking. It seems in fact we want it to be there so badly we'll even sculpture our own. I'm just not convinced guys and there are a great many a scientist that agrees. It doesn't matter to me how you arrange a bunch of ape bones and human bones, apes are apes, people are people. You can use your imagination to fit a supposition, but there's simply no compelling evidence of it. Again, the list of the skeptical is not whaning, it's growing. Don't take my word for it, read what they have to say. Why would the ones involved in research and discovery be more skeptical than the "faithfuls"? I don't know, a good question to ask yourself. I've posted several quotes of those who know a great deal more than you and I and in fact are proponents of the theory for nothing other than 'practice' or 'training'.

Just to be clear, to wholly accept evolution is to be faithful and does not rely on science or observation no matter how badly one wants it to. It is generally not observed. It is not empirically scientific, contradicts tangible evidence such as the Cambrian record and in many cases the alleged answers to these questions are not even testable. You can say my pessimism on evolution is rooted in Christian dogma. All I'm saying is your optimism is rooted in agnosticism or atheism and the evidence you use to bolster your position requires equal amounts of faith and dogma. I've seen nothing that changes my mind on the above. Those that defend it do so for reasons having nothing to do with science, but they simply can't admit that because it puts them in the same boat as the Creationist. I'm not trying to be adversarial or cruel or offensive. I'm simply saying what few of you would like to admit.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Horizontal evolution, you simply cannot cite an example of vertical evolution or macroevolution. They having "gotten new genes" does not necessarily equate to evolution. It is still the same bacteria, but even this is questionable. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati; "A population of microbes becomes resistant to antibiotics because of a loss of genetic information or a transfer of information between microbes. But in no case have bacteria become resistant through a gain of new information." In fact, because of the rate at which bacteria multiply they would seem to be a good illustration of evolution. Producing many generations in a day, within a matter of months should show us the equivalent of millions of years of evolution yet remarkably, they remain unchanged from what we knew of them 100 years ago and in fact are identical to fossilized bacteria.

Macnn ate my post so this is gonna be shorter.

1. You claimed new genes weren't possible. I showed you how new genes arrive. You were wrong.

2. That Dr. Sarfati quote is odd to say the least and I'd be delighted if you could provide the original article.

3. Bacteria are "primitive" organisms that don't have the same chances of DNA rearrangement as more complex organisms(mammal reproduction as one example) which has caused them to develope other ways of getting new DNA.

[von Wrangell]

Googling that exact quote gave me this site:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...05response.asp

Only problem is that the one attributed to that quote there is a Michael Matthews who writes for Answers in Genesis.

So again, please provide the original article.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

...and a little civility. olePigeon I'm honestly a little surprised by your tone. Two people can view the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. This happens in science.

Absolutey! In fact, we need point of views and arguments. But I think we need views from a grounded standpoint. When you're investigating an arsen case, for example, and looking at how the fire started, all sorts of evidence can lead to different conclusions. There was flammable liquid at the scene. It could've come from a lighter, an oily rag, a bucket full of petrol, etc. Perhaps just an accident, spilled gasoline on his shoes and accidently lit himself on fire or something. Then you have one guy in the back saying, "God did it. He invented fire."

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Regarding the chimp-man anomoly (sp?) (snip)...

I won't go over this again, cue the dead horse picture. Seems like some are bending over backwards to try to rationalize their points of view. I shouldn't matter what 'more and more' people are doing, if you yourself are in fact understanding what is going on, and that clearly isn't happing with a few here.

I think I am done with this thread, we have been down these ridiculous assertions too many times to get any use out of this discussion.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Ptah is the Egyptian god that helped create the Earth. Tiamat is the Babylonian god that created the Earth. "God" (Jahova) is the Christian/Judain god that created the Earth. They're all mythical entities that different cultures believed created the Earth.

or, they're the same deity with different names.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

or, they're the same deity with different names.

or they're part of the same fable that grew apart as translation caused err and confusion.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm not sure you've been reading my posts f1000. I have the gut felling that to continue posting would probably be fruitless at this point. For one thing, I addressed your point in an honest manner only to come back and read about Santa Claus and angels dancing on the heads of pins. I was answering your questions honestly f1000, Unfortunately, you've made it obvious to me that in several days this is all you could come up with. At some point I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and call it a day.

All you've been doing is paraphrasing ID/Creationist websites. You’re not critically reading or fact checking what you’re posting. Here are my belated responses to some of your previous comments:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...0&#post2572700

At the very least, you could try to read the actual studies that these ID/Creationist websites cite instead of taking the websites' conclusions at face value. Some of the cited studies are ten pages or longer, and it's clear to me that you haven't bothered to read any them.

Each post of mine only addresses preceding comments, so I apologize if I don't address all your responses at once. I'm trying to keep other readers in mind.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Now regarding the rest of your questions, read the last 4 or 5 posts of mine in which I copy-pasted arguments made by proponents of evolution, their problems with it, and the other hypothesis they present to work around these problems and why macro-evolution is not testable.

I have now addressed those quotes (at least the ones to me) and pointed out that none of them supports ID theory or refutes evolution. Moreover, none of those quotes proposes alternative hypotheses.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...5&#post2577819

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I already have f1000 and I'm not alone. Evolutionist Francisco Ayala stated: "A hypothesis is empirical or scientific only if it can be tested by experience ... A hypothesis or theory which cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of science."

Evolutionists Ehrlich and Birch on evolution: "Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus outside of 'empirical science,' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have been accepted by most of us as part of our training."

Don't take it from me f1000, take it from them. This is what I appreciate most about scientists, they're generally painfully honest.

I love the way you lift these quotes out of context (straight from ID sites, no doubt). In fact, based on some of your previous posts, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these quotes were erroneous or outright falsified.

The theory of evolution is indeed incomplete; hence, not every aspect of the theory is indisputable. That’s a far cry from saying that the entire theory of evolution, with ALL of its tenets, is false.

I’m not sure what Ehrlich and Birch are talking about; even scientists make boneheaded comments.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Biologist, Hubert P. Yockey, Chief of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Reactor Branch on evolution: "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."
He is not alone in this either.

Physicist, H.S. Lipson on evolution; "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit within it."

You have to ask yourself whether you're less critical of the theory than these proponents of it are.

These quotes aren’t logically wrong; however, they don’t claim that evolution is wrong, either.

It's funny that you would quote someone who claims that almost all scientists have accepted evolution. Weren't you just saying that many now doubted it?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

f1000, I'm asking an honest question here; are you or are you not an atheist or agnostic?

Ad hominem does not belong in any rational debate.

[xenu]

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._4_29_2003.asp

Ehrlich and Birch:

"If one reads only the creationists' quotation from Ehrlich and Birch's article, one would think that Ehrlich and Birch believe that the theory of evolution as a whole is untestable. That impression, however, would be far from the truth, since the creationists have, by quoting Ehrlich and Birch out of context, distorted their views.

...

These two biologists are not at all dissatisfied with the theory of evolution as such.

They are dissatisfied, however, with how some scientists make use of some hypotheses about the evolutionary past. The article is about how some ecologists investigate matters poorly by turning too readily to untestable assumptions about the past to answer their questions rather than first turning to explanations that are falsifiable."

Yockey:

Yockey's quote does not seem to be about evolution, but origins. Anyway ...

"Yockey seems to have achieved his fame by being frequently quoted by creationists, yet, so far as I know, he is not a religiously motivated creationist himself. I agree with others who say that his probability calculations are "shot through with errors" (Doolittle, 1983). However, his appeal for scientific skepticism is welcome"

Lipson:

He is certainly entitled to his personal opinion.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

ebuddy postulates that Intelligent Designers:

a) take many parts and arrange them in a complex and specified manner to perform a specific function.

b) Rapidly influse any amount of genetic information into the biosphere, at times in large quantity allowing the possibility of large morphologic variations within a population.

c) Re-use parts in different organisms or following a design blueprint.

d) typically does not create completely functionless parts.

There’s no way to prove, a priori, that God engages in any of these behaviors; moreover, these postulates do not explain how God arranges, infuses, reuses, and creates. The how may very well be evolution.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

From this, predictions are made such as the following;

a) Irreducibly complex, "machine-like" structures will be found, exhibiting specified complexity regarding a very specific purpose.

b) Fossil forms will be found that appear suddenly and without precursor.

c) Similar genes and functional biological parts will be found in various, numerous, and unrelated organisms.

d) there will be little if any "useless" junk in biology like vestigial organs or supposedly functionless DNA.

These are all testable and underway as we speak.

These predictions do not necessarily arise from ebuddy's postulates; the predictions could also arise from natural theories.

Even if we could prove that these predictions must arise from his postulates (and only from his postulates), we would still need to deal with the fact that the postulates don’t necessarily describe God.

Attacking evolution to prove that God "intelligently designed" life on Earth is therefore futile.

[Taliesin]

There is no undeniable proof for God's existence nor for His non-existence. There are hints for both sides in this world, so that people have something to base their faith on, be it the faith in God's existence or the faith in God's non-existence.

People that believe in God's non-existence the universe is a product of a coincidence, life is the product of a very unlikely probability that is possible because of the uncountable planets and starsystems, galaxies... etc that exist, so that it's a coincidence that the requirements for life on earth were fulfilled, from which on then the different species developed through constant adapting to the surrounding nature.

On the other hand, people that believe in God's existence the universe came into being through God's will and plan, and the life on earth, and possibly on other planets, too, is being constantly created by God, on every step helped along and made possible by God's will and plan.

That's just my 2c.

Taliesin

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

adaptation, no new genes created.

WRONG! Bacteria do not have nervous systems (after all, they're single-celled organisms); hence, their adaptations cannot be behavioral. Bacterial adaptations are usually genetic.

Scientists have observed drug resistance arise in bacteria for decades.

Reference: Professor Todar's Online Textbook of Bacteriology

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Well...they're still dogs. We're not talking about the differences between dachsunds and dobermans, we're talking about the differences between dobermans and fruit bats.

Once again, you're skirting a question. So what if the genes are created within a species? A new gene is a new gene.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

For a more succinct reply, you could maybe consult some of the proponents of evolution who claim it's not scientifically grounded, it's philosophical. For whatever reason, the above are not compelling enough examples of speciation. In fact, they go on to say that there are to date, no reasonably conclusive examples. What do you know that these professors somehow missed???

WRONG! None of the proponents of evolution that you quoted said anything that you claim. You're the one who states that there are no conclusive examples, that evolution is philosophical, etc. Do a text search in this thread if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Can you please explain what any of the above have to do with one another??? If these are the traits you equate to scientists and many others who disagree with you, you'd do well to assess your character more, and assassinate theirs a little less.

I agree, this was uncalled for.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You can deny conventional wisdom, but generally what we observe through experiment, cross breeding and hybridization is a limit to adaptation, not anything else Uncle, adaptation. We're still learning this, but a good start might be;

POPULATION GENETICS: LIMITS TO ADAPTATION

<SNIP>

WRONG! The authors of the webpage (that you failed to cite) state that there can be limits to adaptation, not that adaptation is always limited. Stop misinterpreting everything.

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed..._genetics.html

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by f1000

WRONG! Bacteria do not have nervous systems (after all, they're single-celled organisms); hence, their adaptations cannot be behavioral. Bacterial adaptations are usually genetic.

Scientists have observed drug resistance arise in bacteria for decades.

And that can still be a behavior, for there is no need of a nervous system to "behave":

Noun

S: (n) behavior, behaviour, conduct, doings (manner of acting or controlling yourself)
S: (n) behavior, behaviour (the action or reaction of something (as a machine or substance) under specified circumstances) "the behavior of small particles can be studied in experiments"
S: (n) demeanor, demeanour, behavior, behaviour, conduct, deportment ((behavioral attributes) the way a person behaves toward other people)
S: (n) behavior, behaviour ((psychology) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation)

My emphasis

Behavior is therefore applicable to genes. The problem would be in attributing to genes any qualities they do not possess through attribution or projection, as if "behavior" is attributable to life. But "behavior" is a logical category that seems to include the concepts of movement, change, transformation. It happens like so because we use a grid of analysis to decribe and categorize phenomena in relatively useful knowledge (nothing is perfect howver).

This still relevant to the topic of whether I.D. is a valid theory or not in the sense that the tools we use to interpret natural phenomena are greatly influenced by the content of our own minds. I.D. cannot be a science however, for reasons explained elsewhere (falsifiability, etc.). But as a set of beliefs it works well, since just as science, it proceeds from the cogitations of the human mind. Logic gives assistance in categorising and making sense of the world, but it is not the final tool (although extremely useful to make sense of knowledge).

What does not fall under the category "science" is anything else (i.e. religion, etc.) but both proceeds from the same type of cerebral processes. Our values will give more importance to one or the other, but it is a subjective choice. I.D. looks like science, but it does fail the logical tests to have any of its content included in that category; bits and pieces fit, but the logic holding the whole thing together cannot be included in the category "science".

To finalize my point, it is my belief that both science and I.D. have a purpose: to give us some assurance about the world, and I.D. more so at an emotional level (because it includes a God with a purpose and some kindness to its creation) and science more for its applications on reality.

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In fact, because of the rate at which bacteria multiply they would seem to be a good illustration of evolution. Producing many generations in a day, within a matter of months should show us the equivalent of millions of years of evolution yet remarkably, they remain unchanged from what we knew of them 100 years ago and in fact are identical to fossilized bacteria.

Care to read this? (you will need adobe acrobat)
http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/ochma...rrBiol1999.pdf

[f1000]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

And that can still be a behavior, for there is no need of a nervous system to "behave"

Yes, SimpleLife, I had already expected that SOMEBODY might point out this broader definition of behavior, but I didn't think it was necessary for me to say "nervous system controlled" behavior since it should have been obvious what I was talking about.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by f1000

Yes, SimpleLife, I had already expected that SOMEBODY might point out this broader definition of behavior, but I didn't think it was necessary for me to say "nervous system controlled" behavior since it should have been obvious what I was talking about.

I understand that is what you meant, but then, do bacteria really adapt through their genes? Or is there another mecanism in place in the biochemistry that would explain the change.

Don't get me wrong, I know I am splitting hairs, but I really wonder if bacteria really adapt to their environments, or if there is not another name for a phenomena as tinted as "behavior"? Are we talking of one individual bacteria changing to fit a new environment or are we talking about natural selection?

When you say bacteria, you mean the species, or the individual?

Or both?

[f1000]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I understand that is what you meant, but then, do bacteria really adapt through their genes? Or is there another mecanism in place in the biochemistry that would explain the change.

Is there a specific adaptation that you have in mind?

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Are we talking of one individual bacteria changing to fit a new environment or are we talking about natural selection?

What's the difference? If you plate bacteria out onto a Petri dish laced with an antibiotic, the antibiotic will serve as a selection factor.

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

When you say bacteria, you mean the species, or the individual?

bacterium = singular
bacteria = plural

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by f1000

Is there a specific adaptation that you have in mind?

bacterium = singular
bacteria = plural

Now this is one of those times when my English gets an upgrade, and your posts carry another meaning for me.

Thank you.