[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

If we look back through the historical records we can trace lines through all religions, legends and myths the invention of the following ideas:

Does this information somehow bolster evolution???

-Creation myths/bloodletting for diarrhea
-Soul/ Nebraska man
-The afterlife, heaven, hell, reincarnation, resurrection/Piltdown man, recapitulation theories, gill slits and other bogus artist depictions of "evolution".
-The invisible one God and the visible gods, angels, demons, etc/ Archeoraptor and other fossil hoaxes and chimeras duping the world's finest minds for decades. Hmm made a good buck though.

That makes them all man-made in origin.

Well, certainly one set of the above has been proven to be the fabrication of man.

They were theories which became dogma and doctrine that served rulers.

Just like yesterday in serving Hitler and who knows who it will serve tomorrow. Certainly, much of it is dogmatic and requires a very active imagination.

Not so surprisingly, the oldest records we have, either carved on cave walls or the oldest writings, are naturalist rather than theist. It only makes sense that we should trust the memories of those pre-historic humans over those who developed the religious ideas above.

Huh? Link?

That's really all written in stone along with records of evolution. Anyone can take a look, that is if they choose to. There's a lot of spirituality in naturalism. Religion evolved out of it. To call science, which is a path to understanding nature, materialistic makes no sense at all.

It makes all the sense in the world as illustrated succinctly by you in the above statement. ???

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by f1000

Because Keller himself states that he doesn't have a final result yet.

Are you pretending to not understand how scientific theory works deliberately? I'm often amazed at how similar your line of reasoning is to those you indict of ignorance f1000. I'm just calling a spade a spade bra, no offense intended. Talk about being coy.

Don’t be coy; post this data already.

Are we still watching apples drop from trees to establish and affirm our ideals on gravity???
Much of what we know is founded on the knowledge gained on the backs of those before us. We do not need to re-conduct reasonably conclusive evidence from prior experiments. Experimentation has uncovered high information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum. Research has also illustrated significant, specified complexity in the laws of the universe.
Fossil Record; Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example. Research and evidence abounds in the very fossil record you propose to use in supporting your "just so story".
Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics; Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example. There you go Uncle Skeleton.
DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality; research has led to increased knowledge of genetics and uncovered a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).

Science isn't about testimonials. All you've done is trotted out a list of Ph.D.’s who believe in ID. You still don't provide any experiments from these luminaries to overturn evolution or support ID.

BTW; just because someone happens to disagree with you or a supposition in general, does not mean their research and conclusions are not valuable. The credibility of the test/control, the scientists involved, and published data can be reviewed by all scientists. If I can establish that experimentation has already served my conclusion, what new experiment would you hope to see other than the ones being conducted now in an attempt to falsify irreducible complexity. You're still not getting it, but I just may keep trying.

This sounds like slander to me.

sue me. Then try to prove to me that scientists are somehow not subject to the fallacies of human bias, the chance at affluence and wealth, and are wholly involved for nothing more than the advancement of mankind. Prove me wrong.

All your rhetoric only serves to strengthen my opinion that you have nothing substantive to offer in this debate.

What data have you provided???

You claimed that scientists have no faith. I explained why they must have faith.

No, this is where you couldn't be any further off the mark my friend, the faith science should have is faith in absolutely nothing. This, for the very reasons why you have a problem with religious dogma. It does not need to be proven because it is already believed. Science should never render itself to this intellectual limitation.

Galileo was placed under house arrest and threatened with torture and death. ID’ers can publish their ideas in books, newspapers, and the Internet.

They can and have also published them in peer reviewed science text. This was a statement to illustrate that these ad hominem attacks on those who question your religion are nothing new my willingly faithful friend.

If my assertion is patently false, then post the experiments or observations that bolster ID (and can't be explained by evolution).

I don't need to. Conduct the experiments youself if you don't believe them. Cite for me one experiment in which the material was not subject to the manipulation, test, and control of an intelligent agent in a controlled environment of his creating. I present to you all evidence, all information, and all conclusions made by the community of science to date as evidence of Intelligent Design.

Sure, it's an experiment that others can repeat and get similar results from. F&P claimed that they achieved cold fusion. They became the butt of many a late-night joke because no one could conclusively replicate their experiments.

True, and many a fossil hoax have led to Archeopteryx egg on many a scientist's face as well. This happens in science. The reason these things can happen is because you cannot repeat the process of whale to wolf. You don't have the resources nor the time. Unless you're aware of something I'm not, are you prepared to present repeat experimentation on morphological creation of the bombardier beetle, the giraffe, the bacterial flagellum??? Ahh, but I dare say you certainly believe their evolution is unquestionable because you're simply unable to illustrate their morphology with repeat experimentation. You're likely to present Darwin's finches perhaps as your experimentation? The ones that evolved back to their initial state immediately once the Intelligent Designer's meddling ceased???

If ID can't be supported by repeatable experiments or observations, then it's NOT SCIENCE.

SETI is science. Forensics is science. They both seek to determine the difference between random and deliberate. They are no different in application than aspects of ID. Continue to learn faithful youngling, do not squelch a well-rounded and open-minded education.

I'll probably address your synopsis of ID over the weekend.

No really, take a month. I've got all the time in the world.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics; Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example. There you go Uncle Skeleton.

Yeah, thanks for plagiarizing that nugget from some website. I just don't know what it means (and the website does not elaborate either). What genes and what functional parts are we talking about? What unrelated organisms? What's the "root of the tree of life?" Sorry for not being up on the latest jargon and talking points.

[lurkalot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I've been thinking it over, and I'd say that one actually could show evidence for Intelligent Design. For example, genetic similarity between species theorized to be related through evolution might also be explained by an intelligent designer re-using a successful component in many of His creations. If this were true, we would expect to see genetic homology among some species that evolution defines as not related. To my knowledge, we don't see this (do we?). Such a discovery would be a pretty hard blow for evolution, and a boon for ID. By the same token, failing to find such genomic incongruities with evolutionary theory seems to me to be a blow against ID, more so as each new genome is sequenced.

What say you (all)? Does this supposition hold water?

Anyway, I've never been convinced by the irreducible complexity tack, for the simple reason that just because we can't come up with a way to reduce the complexity, or reverse engineer the (alleged) evolutionary process, doesn't mean it can't be done. However, finding genetic or genomic homology across species that should have none (or many separate homologies that paint contradictory pedigrees across species) would be a much more convincing find. The question is, is a failure to find it evidence to the contrary? On the one hand, it's once again trying to prove a negative just like the irreducible complexity gambit. On the other, what possible reason could there be for a designer to re-use components across "related" species but not "unrelated" ones?

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious but...
Although it has been claimed that its purpose is not to attack evolution in a broader sense or Darwin's theory in particular, the reality is that searching for and claiming to have found irreducible complexity in natural organs has one purpose only, the refutation of Darwin's evolution theory. The IC tack is pursued because Darwin himself pointed out that finding irreducible complexity would break his theory. That's why the tack is taken. Find IC and you will have Darwin's own concession on paper years after his death.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."
Charles Darwin, "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Chapter 6. 1859.
Link

There may be other ways to attack his theory but few would yield such an unequivocal concession if done successfully.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yes, ok, but that doesn't change the fact that IC relies on proving a negative, and I can't think of any way to say (with a straight face) "I can't think of a way this structure could have come from a simpler form, therefore none exists or ever could have existed." Perhaps that's why Darwin conceded it in the first place?

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but how would one ever prove IC in any way?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yeah, thanks for plagiarizing that nugget from some website. I just don't know what it means (and the website does not elaborate either). What genes and what functional parts are we talking about? What unrelated organisms? What's the "root of the tree of life?" Sorry for not being up on the latest jargon and talking points.

I can't count how many times I've been discussing an issue with someone that got all their talking points from Talkorigins and nothing is mentioned. There happens to be information on IC and I get accusations of plagiarism. This information is out there for all to see and use. How far do you think I'd get by quoting from a source such as Discovery Institute w/o someone coming in and saying; "but they're a bunch of Creationists!!!" w/ no regard for the data at all. It gets old.

Another tactic I love is when something is ignored, it's not simply; "oh well, that's a point, but I don't buy it." I get; "what's this, I've not heard of this before???" as if I've made the term up. Tell ya what, when you've made youself more familiar with some of these basic concepts, let's return for a chat shall we???

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lurkalot

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious but...
Although it has been claimed that its purpose is not to attack evolution in a broader sense or Darwin's theory in particular, the reality is that searching for and claiming to have found irreducible complexity in natural organs has one purpose only, the refutation of Darwin's evolution theory. The IC tack is pursued because Darwin himself pointed out that finding irreducible complexity would break his theory. That's why the tack is taken. Find IC and you will have Darwin's own concession on paper years after his death.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."
Charles Darwin, "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Chapter 6. 1859.
Link

There may be other ways to attack his theory but few would yield such an unequivocal concession if done successfully.

So, let's say all of IC and ID is bent on one aspect alone, disproving a theory. At the surface, is there a problem with this??? If a theory is falsifiable, it is a viable theory no? So, when someone does this (no matter what incredible bias you may think they have) or attempts to do this, this is not counter-productive. That's all I've been trying to say. It's not counter-productive and in fact it's good questions that drive advancement. I have no problems in believing the accuracy of evolution. I agree with most of the suppositions made by you all, but science is an evolving craft right? We don't yet have all the answers and explainations. There are a lot of highly educated individuals on both sides of the fence debating these concepts. I say let them. There are also zealots on both sides. There are the ones that would use the work of Behe to try and get Jesus of Nazareth taught in schools, but I think everyone can pretty much see these folks comin' and they're really not getting anywhere with their tactic. These are the ones that might say; "how can their still be apes if we evolved from them?" and thinks like this that wreak of ignorance. There are others however, that are digging much deeper and asking very good questions. These ID scientists and others are doing nothing that evo scientists aren't doing among themselves; debating. This is not destructive for science. What's destructive are the zealots on both sides like National Geographic comes in posting pictures of chimeras on the front cover, then when the chimera is exposed as a fake of course it maybe gets a 5 word blurb behind the giant car advertisement. Other popular media making conclusions and connections that the scientists themselves had not made. Then we all stand around scratching our heads wondering why there are so many misconceptions about evolution. Let's not lurch, kneejerk, jump to conclusions, make big deals out of small things, etc... Let's just let science and scientists do what they do. Argue and debate and drive science forward. I'm not trying to get ID in schools, I'm just letting folks know the ideal is out there and there's some interesting stuff to read about it. You and I both know that there is no way for me to present this information w/o some zealot coming in to say; "MORONS, BIBLE THUMPERS, ANTI-DARWINISTS" etc...at that point I would expose them for being a little too dedicated to science to put it kindly. A little too far in. A little over the edge. A little dogmatic.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Yes, ok, but that doesn't change the fact that IC relies on proving a negative, and I can't think of any way to say (with a straight face) "I can't think of a way this structure could have come from a simpler form, therefore none exists or ever could have existed." Perhaps that's why Darwin conceded it in the first place?

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but how would one ever prove IC in any way?

Darwin conceded this point because it's true. If one can establish an organism as needing all of it's parts to function as a whole, then this causes some trouble for his theory. People seem to think that anyone who challenges Darwinism is wrong by that virtue alone. That's what theories are for, to be disproven. If you cannot and the theory remains intact after much scrutiny, then it strengthens the theory. This is not a bad thing.

In regards to how to prove IC they're doing it now. They're called "knockout" experiments. Various proteins are knocked away until the organism is no longer functional. Then, you attempt to trace a lineage that begat that complex machine. We will never learn more if we just say; "it happened". You know we have to learn how. There is much to be learned, but it's not going to be learned by suppressing their ability to present their information. I mean, if there's nothing to worry about and there's an opportunity to expose some of these people as quacks, then there's nothing to worry about right? In fact, the more failed attempts at disproving evolution there are, the stronger the theory becomes.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

So, let's say all of IC and ID is bent on one aspect alone, disproving a theory. At the surface, is there a problem with this??? If a theory is falsifiable, it is a viable theory no? So, when someone does this (no matter what incredible bias you may think they have) or attempts to do this, this is not counter-productive. That's all I've been trying to say. It's not counter-productive and in fact it's good questions that drive advancement. I have no problems in believing the accuracy of evolution. I agree with most of the suppositions made by you all, but science is an evolving craft right? We don't yet have all the answers and explainations. There are a lot of highly educated individuals on both sides of the fence debating these concepts. I say let them. There are also zealots on both sides. There are the ones that would use the work of Behe to try and get Jesus of Nazareth taught in schools, but I think everyone can pretty much see these folks comin' and they're really not getting anywhere with their tactic. These are the ones that might say; "how can their still be apes if we evolved from them?" and thinks like this that wreak of ignorance. There are others however, that are digging much deeper and asking very good questions. These ID scientists and others are doing nothing that evo scientists aren't doing among themselves; debating. This is not destructive for science. What's destructive are the zealots on both sides like National Geographic comes in posting pictures of chimeras on the front cover, then when the chimera is exposed as a fake of course it maybe gets a 5 word blurb behind the giant car advertisement. Other popular media making conclusions and connections that the scientists themselves had not made. Then we all stand around scratching our heads wondering why there are so many misconceptions about evolution. Let's not lurch, kneejerk, jump to conclusions, make big deals out of small things, etc... Let's just let science and scientists do what they do. Argue and debate and drive science forward. I'm not trying to get ID in schools, I'm just letting folks know the ideal is out there and there's some interesting stuff to read about it. You and I both know that there is no way for me to present this information w/o some zealot coming in to say; "MORONS, BIBLE THUMPERS, ANTI-DARWINISTS" etc...at that point I would expose them for being a little too dedicated to science to put it kindly. A little too far in. A little over the edge. A little dogmatic.

First, science is not a craft.

Second, there are no credible scientists who can support their belief in ID with empirical evidence.

Third, this "ID theory/movement" is a purely American phenomenon.
There is no 'evlolution debate' outside of the US. The rest of the world accepts the evidence.

Meanwhile, abortion and stemcell research are controversial in the States and may be banned, while in countries like s.korea thier scientists are doing gound-breaking research manipulating cells and cloning to create tommorow's cures.

Its a funny world.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I've been thinking it over, and I'd say that one actually could show evidence for Intelligent Design. For example, genetic similarity between species theorized to be related through evolution might also be explained by an intelligent designer re-using a successful component in many of His creations. If this were true, we would expect to see genetic homology among some species that evolution defines as not related. To my knowledge, we don't see this (do we?). Such a discovery would be a pretty hard blow for evolution, and a boon for ID. By the same token, failing to find such genomic incongruities with evolutionary theory seems to me to be a blow against ID, more so as each new genome is sequenced.

There is no evidence for Intelligent Design because the entire premise is that God (or whoever) created the critters of this planet. You can not provide evidence for something that simply does not exist.

The only argument that has any legitimacy for Intelligent Design are animals and plants that humans have designed. But then that falls apart because it's humans, not God, that designed them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There happens to be information on IC and I get accusations of plagiarism. ...How far do you think I'd get by quoting from a source such as Discovery Institute w/o someone coming in and saying; "but they're a bunch of Creationists!!!" w/ no regard for the data at all.

I know this is off topic, but the least you could have said is "I found this somewhere and it agrees with the way I see things." To just copy/paste someone else's writing mixed in with your own without even adding quotation marks is pretty lame. I know you know how to use quote tags; I've seen you do it.

I get; "what's this, I've not heard of this before???" as if I've made the term up. Tell ya what, when you've made youself more familiar with some of these basic concepts, let's return for a chat shall we???

Well, I haven't heard of this before. All I'm asking is that you help me out and explain it. Most people are willing to do that, but I knew from past experience that asking it of you is like pulling teeth, so I consulted google first. All that led me to was the website you copied it from, which itself had no explanation and no links. I don't know where else to look for this information on my own, and obviously you do, so I'm just asking you to tell me. If that's too intrusive for you, by all means keep it a secret.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If one can establish an organism as needing all of it's parts to function as a whole, then this causes some trouble for his theory.

That's not exactly true. It's if an organism's parts could not have come about by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," which is different from the parts coming about from nothingness. If what you said above were true, knockout experiments would have made short work of evolutionary theory long ago.

That's what theories are for, to be disproven. If you cannot and the theory remains intact after much scrutiny, then it strengthens the theory. This is not a bad thing.

I agree with you on this. Evidence is allegedly being presented to question evolutionary theory, and all I'm doing is questioning that evidence.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You can not provide evidence for something that simply does not exist.

We can't really know it does not exist until we look for evidence. I'll admit I wouldn't want to waste a bunch of time designing experiments to test something I have 0 expectation of existing, but when the evidence has already been gathered for other purposes, I hardly think we should turn a blind eye to the answer once someone has asked the question.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I know this is off topic, but the least you could have said is "I found this somewhere and it agrees with the way I see things." To just copy/paste someone else's writing mixed in with your own without even adding quotation marks is pretty lame. I know you know how to use quote tags; I've seen you do it.

The fact of the matter is that I use a wealth of information. The terms I use are the common terms for the items I'm discussing. I'm not plagiarizing anything. I'm sure if I had, you would've posted it and said nice copy-paste job from "such and such". I'm not going to give you a listing of all the resources I use to discuss a matter just as you've not called on others who disagree with me for all of their sources. I can picture it now; "well, some of the stuff on gill slits I got from my highschool biology teacher and the stuff on man evolving from ape I got out of a Dr. Seuss book, etc..." I know exactly why the sources are requested and you're correct, I generally won't give those with the disingenuous request any of those sources. There is a wealth of them and they all touch on much of the same subject matter. You're welcome to it.

Well, I haven't heard of this before.

If you've not heard on the tree of life, with all due respect why on earth would you even banter about evolution??? The request seemed disingenuous and (as someone else put it I want to make sure I'm giving due credit at all times) "coy".

All I'm asking is that you help me out and explain it. Most people are willing to do that, but I knew from past experience that asking it of you is like pulling teeth, so I consulted google first.

This is simply not true at all. You can ask several others, I've given enough information to fill a book when I believe someone is honestly interested. It's not like pulling teeth at all.

All that led me to was the website you copied it from, I don't know where else to look for this information on my own, and obviously you do, so I'm just asking you to tell me. If that's too intrusive for you, by all means keep it a secret.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#root
I'm shocked that in all the googling, you didn't happen across talkorigins. You're probably starting to understand why I believed your request for information was (as you put it) "lame". The "root" is probably one of the more hottly debated items of evolution. If all life stems from common ancestory, there is a phylogenetic tree that begins to emerge. As with any tree be it family or otherwise, there is a beginning to the present. The "beginnings" make up the root. For obvious reasons, little is known about the root, but we should expect to see commonality or a "blueprint for design". The rest of that link will outfit you with all kinds of information.

[Zimphire]

No one is going to change their minds.

Leave the poor horse a lone.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No one is going to change their minds.

Leave the poor horse a lone.

I understand Zimph. It is a dead horse and the discussion usually dwindles to a couple very specific points, then peters out altogether. At the end of the day, all I want people to know is that there are intelligent and knowledgeable people out there who question very specific aspects of current evolution theory. I want people to know that the ones behind the research are not dangerous and will help thrust science forward. In any field, this check and balance while annoying to some, is necessary to keep everyone on their toes and open about all aspects of their conclusions. In most cases, this is what happens in science. It's not like everyone has to come up with their own earth-shattering data, but they debate the data we already have. Some are more public about it while many others simply question it privately and/or for personal enjoyment. I'm usually among the latter until I see someone jump in and try to presume these people are quacks and/or dogmatic morons simply because they present some questions of a theory. Certainly they exist, but then so do some zealous proponents of evolution. The questions they provide are not destructive and dangerous to the field. Let 'em flesh it out for a while. In the end, I believe we will have learned more.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

all I want people to know is that there are intelligent and knowledgeable people out there who question very specific aspects of current evolution theory. I want people to know that the ones behind the research are not dangerous and will help thrust science forward.

Here's one of them

[Uncle Skeleton]

thanks

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics; Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example. There you go Uncle Skeleton.

So what this is saying is that our inability to nail down ancestral histories of single-celled organisms from 4 billion years ago is a prime example of genetic similarities that defy a model of common ancestry? It seems to also imply there are a number of other examples, (necessarily) from more recent times...can you point me to any of those? I would be much more interested in multicellular examples, especially since bacteria are already known to pick up strange DNA from their environments (not to mention 4 billion years is a long time). Thanks.

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally Posted by Nicko

First, science is not a craft.

Second, there are no credible scientists who can support their belief in ID with empirical evidence.

Third, this "ID theory/movement" is a purely American phenomenon.
There is no 'evlolution debate' outside of the US. The rest of the world accepts the evidence.

Meanwhile, abortion and stemcell research are controversial in the States and may be banned, while in countries like s.korea thier scientists are doing gound-breaking research manipulating cells and cloning to create tommorow's cures.

Its a funny world.

Rather coincidentally I started reading Terry Pratchett's The Science of the Diskworld 3 - Darwin's Watch a couple of days ago. Ebuddy, I'd suggest taking a read of it, it's most informative. Of course, due to Pratchetts general Sci-fi writing you may not take it as seriously as an actual textbook, but it's as entertaining as it is informative, and the topics they discuss aren't made up by them, but are about current scientific understanding (the co-authors also have great credentials).

Also, about the human eye thing - in the first Science of the Diskworld they cite experiments showing how a human eye can evolve from photoreactionary cells such as those found on the back of frogs (or something like that, it's been a while since I read it). Claiming that the human eye is a case for ID just goes against actual experiments and observations, so I don't know where you've got this from... In fact, take a look at the first hit on google for 'evolution of the human eye' - it only really touches on the subject lightly, but I'm sure there are much better sources online. If not, you may as well dig up and read all the Science of the Diskworld books

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Black Book

To Nicko's point, I don't know why you'd say such a thing if you've been following along you should know. The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design is comprised of over fifty research fellows. The fellows of the society include senior faculty at such schools as Oxford University in England, Princeton University in the United States, University of New Brunswick in Canada, University of Sydney in Australia, University of Auckland in New Zealand, Hanyang University in Korea, Helsinki University of Technology in Finland, and the State University of Applied Sciences in Frankfurt Germany (see www.iscid.org/fellows.php). It's most definitely not an exclusively American ideal. You're wrong on that. Second of all; yes, it is most definitely a craft. There are a great many scientists who started out simply as enthusiasts with no formal education. Some of it's proponents more evangelistic than others.

Rather coincidentally I started reading Terry Pratchett's The Science of the Diskworld 3 - Darwin's Watch a couple of days ago. Ebuddy, I'd suggest taking a read of it, it's most informative. Of course, due to Pratchetts general Sci-fi writing you may not take it as seriously as an actual textbook, but it's as entertaining as it is informative, and the topics they discuss aren't made up by them, but are about current scientific understanding (the co-authors also have great credentials).

So much to read, so little time. I probably won't be reading this, but I appreciate your genuine offer. If I want really enthusiastic sci-fi, I'll pick up a National Geographic thanks though.

Also, about the human eye thing - in the first Science of the Diskworld they cite experiments showing how a human eye can evolve from photoreactionary cells such as those found on the back of frogs (or something like that, it's been a while since I read it). Claiming that the human eye is a case for ID just goes against actual experiments and observations, so I don't know where you've got this from...

Where I got the human eye thing from??? Care to show me where I mentioned anything even remotely close to the human eye??? Are you making things up, assigning them to me, then arguing yourself??? I guess you really fixed your little red wagon on that one. What a zinger man nicely done.

In fact, take a look at the first hit on google for 'evolution of the human eye' - it only really touches on the subject lightly, but I'm sure there are much better sources online. If not, you may as well dig up and read all the Science of the Diskworld books

Assigning arguments to me mistakenly, then knocking them down. Insulting me with disingenuous reading suggestions. Stating things that are patently false for reasons I will never understand. Name-calling, references to Scope's Trials, Creationists, etc... it just goes on and on. I have to ask, what on earth are you people so afraid of???

[bubblewrap]

I have the PBS DVD set Evolution.

Can be revieved here

I want The Elegant Universe next.

[Zimphire]

No matter what you believe there is faith involved. Admit it or not.

Not that it really matters how we got here. That is superficial.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

thanks
So what this is saying is that our inability to nail down ancestral histories of single-celled organisms from 4 billion years ago is a prime example of genetic similarities that defy a model of common ancestry?

First of all, no one is saying this for certain.

It seems to also imply there are a number of other examples, (necessarily) from more recent times...can you point me to any of those? I would be much more interested in multicellular examples, especially since bacteria are already known to pick up strange DNA from their environments (not to mention 4 billion years is a long time). Thanks.

The examples we have of evolution are primarily adaptive, not very morphological. 4 billion years is a long time, but we find that organisms did not use all 4 billion years to evolve that we can tell right? If it was evident that it had, little would be arguable here.

ID predicts that mutation and selection cannot produce irreducible complexity. This would require mutation of trillions of organisms, and selection schemes that would enable us to detect the few mutants that would have new characteristics. With most organisms, this is not possible. Bacteria and yeast offer the best chances. The hox gene for example is found in all multicellular organisms and choreographs the activation of other genes in differing organisms in different ways. It seems the Darwinian model would have these structural changes occur at the molecular level, it is very odd that this same part would be used in different ways in different organisms, conserved throughout. Knoll and Carroll attempted to answer this question in 1999 by supposing a developmental model for anthropods, which is very testable. They suggested that in the evolution of the anthropod, key developmental genes would be duplicated, changed, or moved around. Other developmental changes would be included to morph the anthropod into either another species of anthropod, or to crustacean. Since then, numerous experiments have been conducted in which developmental genes were added or removed from organisms. They were to have ended up with dramatic changes in the organism. Well, they haven't. Then Wells comes back and says; "they need to adhere to an extremely rigid step by step plan along the way. Any disruption in this plan is invariably deleterious." That might be a decent enough answer for most, but not for many. In fact, this unwittingly bolsters an argument for ID. What do I believe? I believe such drastic changes lead to less fitness and death. It's really very simple. At the end of the day, both leave you with an extremely active imagination, but like anything else, when you really examine the nuts and bolts of a supposition, it becomes a little less cut and dry than; "Evolution is known fact! You must be a Creationist whacko to believe such things!"

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I can't count how many times I've been discussing an issue with someone that got all their talking points from Talkorigins and nothing is mentioned. There happens to be information on IC and I get accusations of plagiarism. This information is out there for all to see and use. How far do you think I'd get by quoting from a source such as Discovery Institute w/o someone coming in and saying; "but they're a bunch of Creationists!!!" w/ no regard for the data at all. It gets old.

Another tactic I love is when something is ignored, it's not simply; "oh well, that's a point, but I don't buy it." I get; "what's this, I've not heard of this before???" as if I've made the term up. Tell ya what, when you've made youself more familiar with some of these basic concepts, let's return for a chat shall we???

I think the point is that, having plagiarized - having tried to pass other people's words and ideas off as your own by mixing them indiscriminately into your own - you've pretty much demonstrated that your knowledge of these issues is basically recieved, and that you wouldn't otherwise know a phylogenetic tree from a blue spruce. You have every right to try to make your case but it can hardly surprise you that it's not taken more seriously.

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Where I got the human eye thing from??? Care to show me where I mentioned anything even remotely close to the human eye??? Are you making things up, assigning them to me, then arguing yourself??? I guess you really fixed your little red wagon on that one. What a zinger man nicely done.

Assigning arguments to me mistakenly, then knocking them down. Insulting me with disingenuous reading suggestions. Stating things that are patently false for reasons I will never understand. Name-calling, references to Scope's Trials, Creationists, etc... it just goes on and on. I have to ask, what on earth are you people so afraid of???

Do you want to calm down a little? I didn't specifically reference my post to you - I thought someone mentioned it on the first page, but it would appear to be in another thread. I'll use a quote next time so that you don't wet yourself in your angst. So no, I didn't make it up - it's something that people propound quite often, and thought I may as well mention it. But yes, wrong thread etc - I'd been following a few discussions on this subject over the last week, so my apologies. Oh, and I have no idea what my little red wagon is supposed to be, and I certainly didn't argue with myself.

As for my suggestion for Pratchett's books being disingenuous - please read the books. I imagine you'd quite like them. So why would that be insulting? It is a book on this very subject, a subject which you would do well to learn more about, it would seem.

And please, could you quit it with these insulting replies? Thanks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I think the point is that, having plagiarized - having tried to pass other people's words and ideas off as your own by mixing them indiscriminately into your own - you've pretty much demonstrated that your knowledge of these issues is basically recieved, and that you wouldn't otherwise know a phylogenetic tree from a blue spruce. You have every right to try to make your case but it can hardly surprise you that it's not taken more seriously.

All this has to do with the subject how??? Many here would not have seen the information had I not presented it to them. I see nothing wrong with this. Personally, I don't care if you take me seriously or not. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking otherwise very dry and drab information, presenting it in laymen's terms for all to see and read. Some have gone about looking for the websites that I've supposedly plagiarized the data from, which points them to those who do know more than me. Whether you agree or not is beyond the point. It's been relatively effective in getting the points across. Zimph was absolutely correct. At the end of the day, you get to very specific points, then it gets old and tired and does require some faith. I just wanted y'all to know this stuff is out there. There's nothing wrong, dangerous, slanderous, or evil about that. Refute the information, not the source. Afterall, did you expect me to be sitting here with flasks and test tubes and micron-telescopes conducting my own experimentation in between coaching little league and working full time? I guess I don't understand what the hangup is. I've shown people taking talking points almost verbatim from Talkorigins.com, but this is acceptable in your view.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It's been relatively effective in getting the points across.

On the contrary. The only reason I stumbled on that website is because your copy/paste from it was so vague and uninformative that all I could do was right click on it and pray to the gods of google that it had already been explained somewhere (which of course it hadn't).

I've shown people taking talking points almost verbatim from Talkorigins.com, but this is acceptable in your view.

I wasn't aware that you had, but no, it's not, and if some other wacko out there does it that doesn't make it the norm. Eventually you're going to have to get used to the fact that this isn't an us-against-them discussion, and you can't take the behavior of one person you happen to be sparring with and hold it against everyone else you address. After all, you don't seem to like it when people do it to you (intentionally or otherwise).

...anthropods...They were to have ended up with dramatic changes in the organism. Well, they haven't.

Is this one of the unexplainable genes that are "often found in clearly unrelated organisms?" I don't follow. Which arthropods (I assume that's what you meant instead of anthropod) are clearly unrelated, and unrelated to what? And I wasn't asking about trying to reverse-engineer evolution, just about examples of genomic mapping of different genes that might paint contradictory lineages. How do these experiments you've alluded to address that?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Black Book

Do you want to calm down a little?

I'm perfectly calm. I'm responding to you and others in the exact same manner they presented their information to me. Then I sit back and watch people get offended. If I've said something that made you believe I was urgent or insulting, you may want to read what you had written and the manner in which you wrote it.

I didn't specifically reference my post to you

Really? "Ebuddy, I'd suggest taking a read of it, it's most informative." Then you asked; "I don't know where you got this from." Who was this statement to? The only actual name I saw mentioned in your post was me. Apology accepted.

- I thought someone mentioned it on the first page, but it would appear to be in another thread. I'll use a quote next time so that you don't wet yourself in your angst. So no, I didn't make it up - it's something that people propound quite often, and thought I may as well mention it. But yes, wrong thread etc - I'd been following a few discussions on this subject over the last week, so my apologies. Oh, and I have no idea what my little red wagon is supposed to be, and I certainly didn't argue with myself.

It's alright bro, the only one's really questioning how things are posted are those who oppose what I've said. Though, for the life of me can't figure out what I've said that's objectionable, what I do find interesting is the various standards used depending upon the one posting. For this reason, I'm exhausted and tired of this particular thread.

As for my suggestion for Pratchett's books being disingenuous - please read the books.

If I remember to do this and have time, I'll have a look. On the surface I'd probably honestly tell you I don't have time, but I appreciate the heads up.

I imagine you'd quite like them. So why would that be insulting? It is a book on this very subject, a subject which you would do well to learn more about, it would seem.

I'm still looking for whatever it is that you've offered to this that would have me believe you don't need more reading yourself, but again I appreciate the insult. You won't get too angry if I call you a moron I hope. I mean, I'm just responding in like manner.

And please, could you quit it with these insulting replies? Thanks.

I will when you do???

Look, all I'm doing is pointing out how defensive people become over a friggin' theory of science. I don't understand the veracity with which some of you feel it necessary to fight for this. I would say relax, no one is taking your God away. Just enjoy the discussion, try to add something to it instead of joking around and maybe people would take you more seriously. I know a little about these issues because they interest me. No, I don't claim to be a whiz, but when someone asks me a good question I don't think it's acceptable in this forum to simply say I don't know the answer. The answer is out there for almost every question asked, you just have to find it. I know this really burns y'all up, but I find it interesting that you're debating a style of discussion and not the subject matter itself. I leave you all to yourselves to pat one another on the back. Just know that you are defending a scientific theory, not a way of life. There's no reason to call people names, tell them they don't know what they're talking about when really no information has been presented here that would have me believe you do either. There are few PhDs here, there are few scientists here. Everyone jumps on their own little wagon and starts trying to bash other people over the head with it. All I say is, "it's not that cut and dry, there are some very good questions" and BOOM out of the woodwork they come, like little carpenter ants to come build a case for evolution. It's really not that important. I just don't like to see people be chastized and made fun of by other people who have no clue how ignorant they sound. I respond to people in the same manner they speak to me or others. If that bothers you, reevaluate your delivery and ask yourself if I'm justified in my response. See ya!

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm perfectly calm. I'm responding to you and others in the exact same manner they presented their information to me. Then I sit back and watch people get offended. If I've said something that made you believe I was urgent or insulting, you may want to read what you had written and the manner in which you wrote it.

Really? "Ebuddy, I'd suggest taking a read of it, it's most informative." Then you asked; "I don't know where you got this from." Who was this statement to? The only actual name I saw mentioned in your post was me. Apology accepted.

It's alright bro, the only one's really questioning how things are posted are those who oppose what I've said. Though, for the life of me can't figure out what I've said that's objectionable, what I do find interesting is the various standards used depending upon the one posting. For this reason, I'm exhausted and tired of this particular thread.

If I remember to do this and have time, I'll have a look. On the surface I'd probably honestly tell you I don't have time, but I appreciate the heads up.

I'm still looking for whatever it is that you've offered to this that would have me believe you don't need more reading yourself, but again I appreciate the insult. You won't get too angry if I call you a moron I hope. I mean, I'm just responding in like manner.

I will when you do???

Hmm, ok. I re-read what I wrote and the manner in which I wrote it. I still see the tone in which you reply and the urgency of it somewhat telling. But, OK. Never mind.

Yes, I only named you in my post, so I see why you thought the whole thing was referenced to you. It is for this reason that I wrote in my previous reply that I would include verbose quotations, just for your benefit. That should clear up things. But yeah, I was wrong in bringing up a point that wasn't even made in this thread.

Hmm. No, I'm not angry that you call me a moron. But then, just like myself, all you have to go on for your impression of the posters here is what they write here. Not sure how insinuating that you appear to have little cue about that which you are arguing against would prompt you to call me a moron, but whatever. You come across as if you believe you are the authority on this subject, and I was just taking issue with this fact. You may well be, but it does not fit in with the numerous literature I have consumed on this issue. Terry Pratchett's efforts being the most entertaining and well received. It's a wee bit on the difficult side to make a supposition as to my authority on this subject from a couple of posts. You, however, have made numerous attempts - I don't believe I have called you a moron, despite the content of your posts.

I still fail to see my posts as insulting to you... I don't think you are responding to posts in this thread in a manner which shows you in a knowledgeable light. You take issue with that? Well, OK...

Look, all I'm doing is pointing out how defensive people become over a friggin' theory of science. I don't understand the veracity with which some of you feel it necessary to fight for this. I would say relax, no one is taking your God away. Just enjoy the discussion, try to add something to it instead of joking around and maybe people would take you more seriously. I know a little about these issues because they interest me. No, I don't claim to be a whiz, but when someone asks me a good question I don't think it's acceptable in this forum to simply say I don't know the answer. The answer is out there for almost every question asked, you just have to find it. I know this really burns y'all up, but I find it interesting that you're debating a style of discussion and not the subject matter itself. I leave you all to yourselves to pat one another on the back. Just know that you are defending a scientific theory, not a way of life. There's no reason to call people names, tell them they don't know what they're talking about when really no information has been presented here that would have me believe you do either. There are few PhDs here, there are few scientists here. Everyone jumps on their own little wagon and starts trying to bash other people over the head with it. All I say is, "it's not that cut and dry, there are some very good questions" and BOOM out of the woodwork they come, like little carpenter ants to come build a case for evolution. It's really not that important. I just don't like to see people be chastized and made fun of by other people who have no clue how ignorant they sound. I respond to people in the same manner they speak to me or others. If that bothers you, reevaluate your delivery and ask yourself if I'm justified in my response. See ya!

People aren't becoming defensive - it's more like incredulous. The way science works is that the process is patently obvious. I mean, how do you pull apart other peoples arguments? Analyse it for yourself - you are doing so within a strict set of rules that make sense. It's not some voodoo that you can't verify.

I do indeed enjoy the discussion, that's why I decided to post for the first time in the poli-lounge. I'm not entirely bothered whether I am taken seriously about an issue such as this on a board predominantly about Macs. I am merely stating something which I see as being obvious - in the same way as I see riding a bike as obvious.

I don't see you're whole PhD thing as being entirely relevant, to be honest. So if me and Mithras bandied together to refute your point, you'd be happy about that? (I believe neither of us has our PhD just yet, but soon )

Once again, please understand the tone of this post and refrain from the insults.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Black Book

Hmm, ok. I re-read what I wrote and the manner in which I wrote it. I still see the tone in which you reply and the urgency of it somewhat telling. But, OK. Never mind.

Yes, I only named you in my post, so I see why you thought the whole thing was referenced to you. It is for this reason that I wrote in my previous reply that I would include verbose quotations, just for your benefit. That should clear up things. But yeah, I was wrong in bringing up a point that wasn't even made in this thread.

I understand and in some cases have done this myself and for that I too apologize. Often times I get caught trying to stuff something into this forum between lunches or in the lulls of creative constipation having listened to the same measure of music for the 115th time. What can I say, this little forum has become addictive and I'm starting to think I need some time away.

Hmm. No, I'm not angry that you call me a moron. But then, just like myself, all you have to go on for your impression of the posters here is what they write here. Not sure how insinuating that you appear to have little cue about that which you are arguing against would prompt you to call me a moron, but whatever.

If you read again what I wrote, you'll see that I never really called you a moron. I apologize for the insinuation though.

You come across as if you believe you are the authority on this subject, and I was just taking issue with this fact.

Look, I'm far from it. I have no problem admitting this at all. I'm no authority on the subject, not by any stretch. It's simply something that interests me. I have an extremely open mind and am not as quick as some here to cast others off as quacks. Two people can view the exact same piece of material or evidence if you will and see two different things. Often times, the one who gleaned a more obscure view of the material is the one with the right idea. In science however, there is a mutually agreed view of evidence. In many cases it's simply because a carpenter, for example, will not get very far if he is constantly questioning why we use the unit inch. At some point, an issue must be reasonably resolved so we can move forward into other areas. Most move into other areas. There are a great many who do argue very specific aspects of evolution and they are made a mockery of in a most unfortunate way. The questioned aspects of evolution that I like to read are the ones authored by those who are very familiar with evolution, worked with evolution in their careers and decided to flesh out their doubts. I don't subscribe (generally) to young earth creationism and will cringe at many of the arguments against evolution I hear from those that you might consider more dogmatic. Most of what I know was learned very recently and I do at times get a little excitable and vomit the information out in chunks. I've noticed doing this in some cases and I can only say that it's because I'm genuinely interested in the information, but there's an awful lot to it. I find you almost have to start from scratch and pick apart each and every bit of data. Usually, I will silently read and study when I have time and keep this to myself. You can only read from so many with so much knowledge on a subject like irreducible complexity or Intelligent Design or really biology in general, find it incredibly fascinating only to come in here and see another one like myself, but with opposing or different philosophical world view, equally as dogmatic as the aforementioned young earth creationist, calling these people quacks. You'll generally not see tired arguments from me nor will you see me quoting from Genesis. I try to keep the angles fresh and the arguments new. This does often require a lot of research, but it's something I enjoy.

You may well be, but it does not fit in with the numerous literature I have consumed on this issue. Terry Pratchett's efforts being the most entertaining and well received. It's a wee bit on the difficult side to make a supposition as to my authority on this subject from a couple of posts. You, however, have made numerous attempts - I don't believe I have called you a moron, despite the content of your posts.

They may be emotional, but I generally try to respond to someone in the exact same manner they approached me. I do make mistakes from time to time. Someone who accuses me of not knowing much about biology or evolution often times has no shortage of things to say against irreducible complexity and ID. I really just want to illustrate the differences between Young earth Creationism, Creationism, and ID. They are different. For one thing, most of the proponents of Design Theory are not opposed to the popularly calculated age of the earth, the geological column, and almost all other aspects of science including evolution. They simply challenge very specific and focused aspects of evolution and question the model having been assigned to all life as we know it.

I still fail to see my posts as insulting to you... I don't think you are responding to posts in this thread in a manner which shows you in a knowledgeable light. You take issue with that? Well, OK...

No, I mean no one is really convincing anyone of anything. Even if they were, this would change little.

I do indeed enjoy the discussion, that's why I decided to post for the first time in the poli-lounge. I'm not entirely bothered whether I am taken seriously about an issue such as this on a board predominantly about Macs. I am merely stating something which I see as being obvious - in the same way as I see riding a bike as obvious.

There are things I probably don't see as obviously as you. I reject the notion that this is founded upon ignorance that's all.

I don't see you're whole PhD thing as being entirely relevant, to be honest. So if me and Mithras bandied together to refute your point, you'd be happy about that? (I believe neither of us has our PhD just yet, but soon )

I've not seen Mithras in this, but suffice it to say I at least respect your dedication to school.

Once again, please understand the tone of this post and refrain from the insults.

I'm done. I promise.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

All this has to do with the subject how??? Many here would not have seen the information had I not presented it to them. I see nothing wrong with this. Personally, I don't care if you take me seriously or not. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking otherwise very dry and drab information, presenting it in laymen's terms for all to see and read. Some have gone about looking for the websites that I've supposedly plagiarized the data from, which points them to those who do know more than me. Whether you agree or not is beyond the point. It's been relatively effective in getting the points across. Zimph was absolutely correct. At the end of the day, you get to very specific points, then it gets old and tired and does require some faith. I just wanted y'all to know this stuff is out there. There's nothing wrong, dangerous, slanderous, or evil about that. Refute the information, not the source. Afterall, did you expect me to be sitting here with flasks and test tubes and micron-telescopes conducting my own experimentation in between coaching little league and working full time? I guess I don't understand what the hangup is. I've shown people taking talking points almost verbatim from Talkorigins.com, but this is acceptable in your view.

You're entitled to disagree, but IMHO the rules of even casual debate call for making proper attribution. Not only is it good manners, but if you're confident in your sources, there's no reason to conceal them. They might be attacked, but that's a natural part of the debate game.

And yes, sources are relevant - if they weren't, why would you want us to know that there are a bunch of Cambridge PhDs who take ID seriously? Because they have a patina of authority and impartiality. Is it not similarly relevant that the Discovery Institute has a stated agenda of challenging evolution theory and advancing Christian values? Of course it is.

As for not caring if you're taken seriously, I'm skeptical - why else would you invest so much energy in posting and arguing? But that's up to you - I would simply reiterate that, IMHO, one is less likely to be taken seriously if one is mostly just copying and pasting without attribution.

I think that raising questions about evolution theory is absolutely valid, as long as we understand that they're questions, not proofs. You seem to understand that but it's not always clear.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by zigzag

You're entitled to disagree, but IMHO the rules of even casual debate call for making proper attribution. Not only is it good manners, but if you're confident in your sources, there's no reason to conceal them. They might be attacked, but that's a natural part of the debate game.

I agree with you and will be more open about my sources. Some though, I will openly admit I'm not 100% confident in. There might be like 80% indoctrination and 20% valid talking points. Too often, when I've posted a link-naturally the 80% BS gets the focus. Then, it truly becomes a waste of time. That said; I don't think I've copy-pasted as blatently as I've been accused. For one thing, I googled entire sections of my text and came up with websites other than the one I was viewing primarily. There is a manner in which these concepts are discussed and a method. Naturally, having read much on this, my methodology of discussion may lean toward the manner in which it was presented to me. To be clear, I'm not at home conducting my own experimentation, I'm reading from others and passing the info along as I understand it. I've also done this in blibbets and will be more conscious of proof-reading what I've written to make sure it's not just a random collection of thoughts. I apologize for this.

And yes, sources are relevant - if they weren't, why would you want us to know that there are a bunch of Cambridge PhDs who take ID seriously? Because they have a patina of authority and impartiality. Is it not similarly relevant that the Discovery Institute has a stated agenda of challenging evolution theory and advancing Christian values? Of course it is.

It is I agree. This is the "80%" part I mentioned above. That is unfortunate because it detracts from an otherwise educational discussion. I believe this also turns others truly interested in concepts of IC and ID away thinking they have to buy-in to all the outlying, irrelevant theological stuff. In short, point taken Zig.

As for not caring if you're taken seriously, I'm skeptical

Right that you should be. I was being a little dishonest. Of course I want to be taken seriously and have done little to strengthen my rep. That said; I do try to center this issue around fresh and more detailed ideas than just; "Evolution is a theory" and the like. In some cases, I've vomited information in chunks and having re-read some of what I've written, I understand the problem some of you have had. I'll work on improving that I assure you.

why else would you invest so much energy in posting and arguing?

Honestly? To learn more myself. I like this stuff. It's very interesting to me, but you hit a precipice of sorts. Sometimes I want to be challenged by others in order to learn more and to remain aware of the points of others. In other words, I don't want to get too narrow-focused on an issue and like to see varying ideals. I also find that discussing these items helps me retain some of the more exhaustive details. To an extent, I'm using you people. I'll try to be more conscious of the manner in which I use people.

But that's up to you - I would simply reiterate that, IMHO, one is less likely to be taken seriously if one is mostly just copying and pasting without attribution.

Point taken. I'll be more open about my sources. If nothing more than to steer you towards the actual source of the material and not where you believed I've simply copy-pasted. I've done myself a great disservice in that. Again, I googled entire sections of my text and came up with similar subject matter obviously, but entirely different sources than the ones I was using. The problem with the issues I present is that there is a limit to the number of places you'll find it. Oh well, we live and learn I guess. Most of you are the same ones I've discussed this stuff with before so any mention of quackery and/or religious bias should be easily refuted if it is in fact refutable. I don't know why I'm hung up on protecting it.

I think that raising questions about evolution theory is absolutely valid, as long as we understand that they're questions, not proofs. You seem to understand that but it's not always clear.

I do understand that and I've done myself a great disservice in my lack of clarity. I believe there are still a lot of questions left on the table regarding molecular evolution and irreducible complexity. I find that often times some of us disagree on what constitutes a reasonable conclusion and I think that's one of the reasons I post here; to find out what others are confident in as being to them, a reasonable conclusion and why. In short, it's a selfish endeavor and makes learning the details a little more palatable than just subjecting myself to indoctrination.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by xenu

Replace the words/concept "intelligent design" with the word/concept "god" and you have creationism.

Creationists need to get lives.

They have no place in the science classroom.

They also need to read books on evolution not written by chemists and engineers. They would then understand how the eye could evolved. May I recommend books by Dawkins and Gould. Very easy to read, and very well written.

Why? What's wrong with evolution being explained by scientists?

Here's a link to a commentary on Intelligent Design

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by saab95

They have no place in the science classroom.

I agree that this really has no place in the classroom. Besides, at this point any attempt to get ID into the classroom would result in an adversarial relationship between the work of the proponents of ID and the proponents of evolution. In other words, it would be viewed as cramming religion into science not necessarily because I believe that's an accurate assessment of the work of ID-ists, but because that's simply how it's viewed.

Why? What's wrong with evolution being explained by scientists?

I'm even more inclined to agree with this point. I believe evolution should be explained exclusively by scientists.

Here's a link to a commentary on Intelligent Design

Overall, a decent article, but I think it's mistaken on a few points regarding ID. The most obvious one I saw was the fact that the article suggests ID is problematic because it supposes a designer exists, and requires the need for there to be another designer before it. This is no more necessary to answer than where the first cell came from. Just as evolution does not necessarily address this question, ID does not address yours. They're still working these things out. Perhaps contrary to what you believe, ID is brand new in the manner in which it addresses complexity and design. In fact, I think you'd find that the more you learn about ID, the more you know this often puts it's proponents in opposition to many more fundamentalist Christians, Creationists, and Young Earthers. The ironic thing is that it's often these people exclusively, that give the points a voice. Hopefully that will change over time, but they've got a lot of work to do before they can get a voice in the community of science. I hope they can because I'm interested in their work.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Are you pretending to not understand how scientific theory works deliberately? I'm often amazed at how similar your line of reasoning is to those you indict of ignorance f1000. I'm just calling a spade a spade bra, no offense intended. Talk about being coy.

What’s with the snide rhetorical question and double speak? I pointed out that Keller has an unproven theory, which he himself admits. You’ve responded by saying that I’m ignorant and coy.

Experimentation has uncovered high information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum. Research has also illustrated significant, specified complexity in the laws of the universe.

Please define specified, irreducible, complex, and machine-like.

Fossil Record; Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors.

Define similar precursor.

The Cambrian explosion is a prime example. Research and evidence abounds in the very fossil record you propose to use in supporting your "just so story".

Research and evidence abound for what?

Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics; Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.

Much of what you describe can be explained by convergent evolution. Computer simulations, for example, have evolved synthetic organisms with morphologies nearly identical to those of real world ones.

By the way, please post examples to back up your assertions.

DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality; research has led to increased knowledge of genetics and uncovered a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).

Cells are tiny structures. Chromosomes are under great evolutionary pressure to be compact and efficient.

BTW; just because someone happens to disagree with you or a supposition in general, does not mean their research and conclusions are not valuable. The credibility of the test/control, the scientists involved, and published data can be reviewed by all scientists. If I can establish that experimentation has already served my conclusion, what new experiment would you hope to see other than the ones being conducted now in an attempt to falsify irreducible complexity. You're still not getting it, but I just may keep trying.

Experiments must be repeatable; otherwise, they’re bad experiments. Experiments should also provide unambiguous results. For you to only accept those experiments that support ID and ignore all experiments that refute it makes you delusional.

sue me. Then try to prove to me that scientists are somehow not subject to the fallacies of human bias, the chance at affluence and wealth, and are wholly involved for nothing more than the advancement of mankind. Prove me wrong.

The Scientific Method was PRACTICALLY INVENTED to overcome the fallacies of human bias. No scientist can promulgate BS for long, because other scientists would quickly figure out that the guy was a fraud. More importantly, no business can create a new drug, chip, or rocket based on fake science (at least not one that works and doesn’t kill people).

What data have you provided???

I’m not the one trying to overturn accepted scientific norms. In any case, read the rest of my responses to you.

No, this is where you couldn't be any further off the mark my friend, the faith science should have is faith in absolutely nothing. This, for the very reasons why you have a problem with religious dogma. It does not need to be proven because it is already believed. Science should never render itself to this intellectual limitation.

Define faith.

ebuddy: Should we just shut them up because they ask good questions, questions the naturalistic lacking of a designer in it's dogma?
f1000: …no one's shutting anyone up.
ebuddy: Well now that certainly is not true.
f1000: Galileo was placed under house arrest and threatened with torture and death. ID’ers can publish their ideas in books, newspapers, and the Internet.
ebuddy: They can and have also published them in peer reviewed science text.

First you claim that the scientific community is trying to shut IDers up. Now you claim that IDers have published articles in peer-reviewed science texts.

I'm breaking my post up because this is getting long-winded.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

There is no evidence for Intelligent Design because the entire premise is that God (or whoever) created the critters of this planet. You can not provide evidence for something that simply does not exist.

The only argument that has any legitimacy for Intelligent Design are animals and plants that humans have designed. But then that falls apart because it's humans, not God, that designed them.

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Evolution may very well be how God "intelligently designs" life on Earth.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by f1000

What’s with the snide rhetorical question and double speak? I pointed out that Keller has an unproven theory, which he himself admits. You’ve responded by saying that I’m ignorant and coy.

I apologize for this insinuation f1000 because truth be told, I know better. I would not even discuss these issues with you if I truly thought this was the case. Based on constructive criticisms from others, I've recently taken a good- hard look at the manner in which I've been posting lately and again, I apologize. I'd like to blame my herniated disc and the medication I'm taking for it, but I've posted here with less capacity than this and still managed to keep the discussion civil. no excuses.

My point was that (crudely) theory occurs in stages as you know, generally starting with a just so story or an educated guess based on what is already known. Experiments are then conducted specifically on these suppositions and predictions. If it is generally agreeable that the scientific method was credibly applied, and it in fact affirms the suppositions and predictions, then you have a viable theory. Here's the problem with ID. It has formulated a just-so story in dire need of additional research and experimentation. It has tried to create a big tent culturally, and has developed a false sense of security behind the gains it has made in culture while leaving the most important part behind it-science. I understand why this was necessary at first, but it has since (in many ways as indicated by several others here) been hijacked by excitable theological agendas. It needs to use this clout for funding so that it can give itself a shot at gaining scientific acknowledgement. It needs to move away from this adversarial "anti-materialist or naturalist" movement and into building a foundation of good science, not just lip-service. I say this because from what I can see, when it comes time for these people to put research grants where their mouths are, all of a sudden the room gets quiet. This is beginning to change. slllloowwwlllly.

Please define [I]specified[/I, irreducible, complex, and machine-like.

An interesting site to visit (if you're able to wade through some marketing and agenda-izing) is arn.org and much can be read on ID, IC and the ones behind the discussion. Michael J. Behe is probably best known for using the term irreducible complexity and it is defined by him as;

"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems."
He then goes on to discuss a cilium;
"Cilia are hairlike organelles on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that serve to move fluid over the cell's surface or to "row" single cells through a fluid. In humans, for example, epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein.

But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other (Figure 2a and b). However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.

What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale. Recall that by "irreducible complexity" we mean an apparatus that requires several distinct components for the whole to work. My mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function. Similarly, the cilium, as it is constituted, must have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless.

The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work."

He then continues on with some other arguable examples; aspects of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, etc...

Define similar precursor.

In context it seems to me they're suggesting that because selection acts on existing function (obviously not on future function) and if there is no similar existing function to select upon, there is no similar precursor.

Experiments must be repeatable; otherwise, they’re bad experiments. Experiments should also provide unambiguous results. For you to only accept those experiments that support ID and ignore all experiments that refute it makes you delusional.

I agree with you and I'll be honest with you, I'm very new at many, I dare say most of these concepts, I viewed your link on convergent evolution, and find it interesting. My first question was, well then how can you determine common ancestory, but the problem is really not that big of one since you can tell the difference by not only looking on the outside at the result, but what's also inside. a good read. That's just it though f1000, I'm not looking only at evidence that supports either. I'm more interested in just reading aspects of both which is why I post here. I am not a scientist just as I am not clergy, I don't need either side to bolster my faith or anything like that-I just read aspects of all of it that interest me. I'm really not as adversarial to science as I have represented myself. i.e. I'm not looking for winners and losers of debates so much as I'm just reading the arguments of both. Some of which I would not have seen had I not posted here. I appreciate the information you've provided and I assure you, I'm reading it.

The Scientific Method was PRACTICALLY INVENTED to overcome the fallacies of human bias. No scientist can promulgate BS for long, because other scientists would quickly figure out that the guy was a fraud. More importantly, no business can create a new drug, chip, or rocket based on fake science (at least not one that works and doesn’t kill people).

I wholly agree with you on this and most of my indictments are not against the scientists themselves. An example might be a scientist's claim that (this is a fabrication by me to illustrate an example as I don't have a specific one readily available, but can upon request ) "a bacteria has been modified by removing toxins in order to fight cancer." It may actually get reported as; "scientists create new bacteria!"

I’m not the one trying to overturn accepted scientific norms. In any case, read the rest of my responses to you.

This statement was the result of me having severely misrepresented myself and again, I apologize. To be clear, I'm not invested enough in any of this to attempt to overturn scientific norms. I'm simply interested in reading the arguments. There are those that do however, and I believe they need to move away from this mindset entirely and bolster their suppositions with method and more tangible research conclusions of their own. In short, proponents of ID had better get over this idea that they're going to overturn conventional wisdom and start building their own cases, with their own funding, and attempt to get scientific acknowledgement with less rhetoric and more substantiated evidence of their own finding.

Define faith.

In short; a set of beliefs or principles not founded on logic or proofs, but enjoying the loyalty and trust of it's adherents.

First you claim that the scientific community is trying to shut IDers up. Now you claim that IDers have published articles in peer-reviewed science texts.

Not the particular peer-reviewed scientific texts I would like to see coverage on and certainly nothing that illustrates any sort of approval. To be clear, advocates of ID using IC need to earn this approval and they've got a lot of work cut out for them in so doing.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I apologize for this insinuation f1000 because truth be told, I know better. I would not even discuss these issues with you if I truly thought this was the case. Based on constructive criticisms from others, I've recently taken a good- hard look at the manner in which I've been posting lately and again, I apologize. I'd like to blame my herniated disc and the medication I'm taking for it, but I've posted here with less capacity than this and still managed to keep the discussion civil. no excuses.

Sorry about your back, ebuddy; I can wholly sympathize with you. Curse our ancestors for deciding to walk upright.

There's a new surgical treatment, by the way, that may be able to replace your herniated disk:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4557301
http://www.charitedisc.com/

I'm still trying to find the time to respond to the other parts of your post, so there's no need for you to drag yourself to a computer and post back so quickly.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

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.

How can any human claim to know how God would design life a priori?

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.

Even if scientists could test these predictions, the results would not confirm the presupposed activities of an Intelligent Designer. I explain why below.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

IF irreducibly complex, “machine-like” structures are found that exhibit specified complexity regarding a very specific purpose,

THEN many parts MUST have been arranged in a complex and specified manner to perform this specific purpose.

If you already assume that a structure is irreducibly complex and exhibits specified complexity regarding a very specific purpose, then you are obviously going to conclude that its parts must have been arranged in a complex and specified manner to perform this specific purpose.

This is circular reasoning.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

IF fossil forms are found that appear suddenly and without precursor,

THEN an amount of genetic information MUST have been infused into the biosphere, at times in large quantity, allowing the possibility of large morphologic variations within a population.

OR the fossil record could simply be incomplete.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

IF similar genes and functional biological parts are found in various, numerous, and unrelated organisms,

THEN parts must MUST have been reused in different organisms or following a design blueprint.

OR those similar genes and functional biological parts may have been highly conserved, evolved convergently, or been transferred by vectors.

It could also be simply coincidence.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

IF there is little if any "useless" junk in biology like vestigial organs or supposedly functionless DNA,

THEN completely functionless parts MUST not have been created.

If you already assume that there is little if any “useless” junk in biology like vestigial organs or supposedly functionless DNA, then you are obviously going to conclude that completely functionless parts must not have been created.

This is circular reasoning.


*Note that I use MUST instead of MAY in the arguments.

[f1000]

The reason these things can happen is because you cannot repeat the process of whale to wolf. You don't have the resources nor the time.

This argument cuts both ways; Creationists/IDers can’t recreate Genesis, either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The examples we have of evolution are primarily adaptive, not very morphological.

I know of countless morphological adaptations: wings, legs, and flippers come to mind. Here’s a morphological adaptation that I’m particularly thankful for.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

4 billion years is a long time, but we find that organisms did not use all 4 billion years to evolve that we can tell right? If it was evident that it had, little would be arguable here.

Bacteria have been around for more than 3.5 billion years.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

ID predicts that mutation and selection cannot produce irreducible complexity. This would require mutation of trillions of organisms, and selection schemes that would enable us to detect the few mutants that would have new characteristics. With most organisms, this is not possible. Bacteria and yeast offer the best chances.

I have a feeling that you're misquoting this from somewhere. The original author isn't saying that such mutations are not possible; what he's saying is that the possibility for scientists to detect such mutations in real-time is very low except in the cases of bacteria and yeast.

A single E. coli bacterium that divides every 30 minutes, for example, could produce 281.5 TRILLION descendents in just 24 hours; yet, all those 281.5 trillion bacteria could also fit into a single cup.

According to William B. Whitman, there are 5 x 10^30 bacteria on Earth. If we make the simple assumption that bacteria have always been dividing every 30 minutes (or about as frequently as Zimphire posts), then approximately 3 x 10^44 bacteria may have come and gone in the history of the Earth. That’s 3 x 10^32 TRILLION opportunities for mutations to have been passed on in bacteria alone.

Bacteria, of course, aren't the only single-celled organisms on the planet. Protists, algae, and yeasts are also single-celled. Viruses are arguably single-celled (if you can even call them cells). Even our gametes are single-celled.

Think about how many opportunities there are for eggs and sperms to mutate. Many gametes are weeded out in the gonads. Deformed sperm can spin in circles or otherwise be incapable of fertilizing an egg. After fertilization, malformed embryos can spontaneously abort.

It may take billions of gametes to produce a single baby; hence, there are a tremendous number of evolutionary events that can occur in the creation of a single human individual.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The hox gene for example is found in all multicellular organisms and choreographs the activation of other genes in differing organisms in different ways. It seems the Darwinian model would have these structural changes occur at the molecular level, it is very odd that this same part would be used in different ways in different organisms, conserved throughout.

Knoll and Carroll attempted to answer this question in 1999 by supposing a developmental model for anthropods, which is very testable.

What is this question that Knoll and Carroll were trying to answer?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

They suggested that in the evolution of the anthropod, key developmental genes would be duplicated, changed, or moved around. Other developmental changes would be included to morph the anthropod into either another species of anthropod, or to crustacean.

Not according to the original article:

The mechanisms underlying the evolution of developmental changes in the arthropods, while generally limited thus far to inferences about Hox genes, may, nonetheless, have some general explanatory power. First, the conservation of the Hox gene family both within and among phyla suggests that most body plan evolution arose in the context of very similar sets of Hox genes, and thus was not driven by Hox gene duplication. Second, the trend toward the evolution of heteronomous body plans is apparent in other groups, such as annelids. Third, in other derived groups that have been examined such as the vertebrates, the correlation between diversification of Hox gene expression patterns and the evolution of anterior-posterior patterning along the body axis applies (102). These observations suggest that bilaterian body plan diversification has occurred primarily through changes in developmental regulatory networks rather than the genes themselves, which evolved much earlier.

Early Animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology
Knoll AH, Carroll SB. Science. 1999 Jun 25; 284(5423): 2129-37. Review

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Since then, numerous experiments have been conducted in which developmental genes were added or removed from organisms. They were to have ended up with dramatic changes in the organism. Well, they haven't.

You mean to say that scientists haven’t been able to change developmental genes to create dramatic changes in arthropods such as Drosophila melanogaster?


Like this?




Or this one by Nobel laureate E. B. Lewis?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Then Wells comes back and says; "they need to adhere to an extremely rigid step by step plan along the way. Any disruption in this plan is invariably deleterious."

I have no idea who this Wells is, but disruptions in this "plan" are NOT invariably deleterious. Most disruptions may be deleterious, but not all. Given the sheer number of mutation events that can occur over millions of years, it’s practically inevitable that beneficial changes leading to speciation can and will accumulate.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by f1000

How can any human claim to know how God would design life a priori?

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. 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. I might argue that many claims regarding molecular evolution cannot be made a priori though. Clearly, ID-ists are seizing the opportunity that Darwin and Dawkins allowed in saying that the theory would fall if some irreducible complexity was found. Now we debate whether or not the organism is irreducibly complex. These folks came up with a way of determining design from what we know as little engineers. Most of the scientists involved in ID are not saying (the non excitable ones anyway, for example Behe is not nearly as excitable as Dembski) it's impossible for the Darwinian model to account for these organisms as we wouldn't really know for certain, they're saying it's improbable and from all of what we know about engineering, there are organisms that illustrate to them design over slight, gradual purely natural phenomena.

If you already assume that a structure is irreducibly complex and exhibits specified complexity regarding a very specific purpose, then you are obviously going to conclude that the parts must have been arranged in a complex and specified manner to perform this specific purpose.

good point. You know they can't "assume" anything. They present this supposition to the biological community and they hash out whether or not something appears to them as irreducibly complex. Will they ever agree? I doubt it, but this shouldn't stop those from researching the concept. You're touching on an important point however, if the organism is irreducibly complex and it is agreeable that it is (this is the crux of the issue really), then there really are few explainations for the existance of that organism. This is where they have their work cut out for them. If you have a theory such as; "I believe ID is involved because of the incredible complexity we find in nature" then make a prediction based on your supposition; "we should find irreducibly complex organisms, not otherwise easily explained by slight, gradual evolution-then we have evidence of our supposition."

This is circular reasoning.

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.

OR the fossil record could simply be incomplete.

I'll address the rest of this in a bit...



OR those similar genes and functional biological parts may have been highly conserved, evolved convergently, or been transferred by vectors.

It could also be simply coincidence.



If you already assume that there is little if any “useless” junk in biology like vestigial organs or supposedly functionless DNA, then you are obviously going to conclude that completely functionless parts must not have been created.

This is circular reasoning.


*Note that I use MUST instead of MAY in the arguments.[/QUOTE]

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by f1000OR those similar genes and functional biological parts may have been highly conserved, evolved convergently, or been transferred by vectors.

How plausible is this though? I agree that we can still predict this to be so, but have not shown adequately how this occurs. While it has proven relatively dangerous for ID proponents, or Creationist proponents to site examples of disagreements in the scientific community as proof of theirs, I don't. I use their copy-pastes of quotes simply to show that their theory is not as solid as they believe it is;

"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].

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).

There are a number of scientists who would tell you; "anything, but god", "anything, but a designer" and it has bled over to; "anything, but design." For example; Francis Crick stated; "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved." Why would they need to keep this in mind? Because there is so much evidence supporting design that they may be sucked into this dangerous thought? This is unfortunate. If something appears designed, maybe it is. 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.

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”

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.”

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 don't believe it's enough to simply say, there is micro-evolution, macro-evolution must then be true. How complete and detailed are the computer simulations that present the plausibility of macro-evolution? Why are they so hottly debated? What other evidence do we have that a species is wholly capable of transcending the seemingly apparent limitation to adaptation? You'd agree that if we required proof for theory to succeed, we'd be hard-pressed in buying in to molecular evolution. Maybe not, maybe it's just me.

If you already assume that there is little if any “useless” junk in biology like vestigial organs or supposedly functionless DNA, then you are obviously going to conclude that completely functionless parts must not have been created.

Good point and I'm not aware of the timing of the above, but maybe I'm missing something. 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. I think if we dug around a little, we'd probably be able to find several examples of popular science using circular reasoning.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Huh? Link?

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/

Roughly 29,000 B.C.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Originally Posted by ebuddy

...anthropods...They were to have ended up with dramatic changes in the organism. Well, they haven't.

Is this one of the unexplainable genes that are "often found in clearly unrelated organisms?" I don't follow. Which arthropods (I assume that's what you meant instead of anthropod) are clearly unrelated, and unrelated to what? And I wasn't asking about trying to reverse-engineer evolution, just about examples of genomic mapping of different genes that might paint contradictory lineages. How do these experiments you've alluded to address that?

ebuddy, did you forget to read my on-topic question while you (ok we I guess) were busy debating debating styles?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

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.”

This is an odd debate isn't it. Each side tries to prove themselves solely by finding fault in the other side. What's really "abnormal and undesireable in science" is when people bring up a theory who's basis is entirely outside the realm of science. Science is the study of natural laws. By definition, the boundaries of "natural science" exclude the supernatural. The two are simply unrelated, and to call one the other is a fallacy. This is why it's not really a fact that "scientific men rally to the defense of [evolution]", rather that they rally to object when the supernatural is disguised and paraded as the natural. In no other facet of science would it be accepted to theorize that natural laws were not always at play, but that at some time in the past, and not since then, a supernatural being intervened and did something unimaginable. You don't see ID debates in geology about the origin of mountains, or in astronomy about constellations. The fact is that the abnormality is not the defense of evolution but rather the introduction of ID. And the irony is to claim (as I believe you have ebuddy) that the ID supporter is merely disturbing the blind faith in evolution, because it is only the persistence of ID claims that causes scientists to cling to their only alternative; if it weren't for ID, evolution would be questioned more often in the scientific community.

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

The answer of course is that we are currently living in a period of evolutionary equilibrium. There are no overwhelming changes in environment which would create new (or newly empty) niches for potential new species to fill (on the contrary, increasing human activity is eliminating niches at a high rate). The selective pressures in place today have been for a long long time, and what speciation they induce has not only already occurred, but is unlikely to drift (since the selective pressures are still in play). You can't show something occurring if it hasn't occurred in your lifetime. And if ID wasn't inherently outside the realm of science, this would apply to it as well.

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”

If humans had decided to devote themselves to creating a selective pressure on wheat to produce fruit, or on pigs to produce wings, over about half a million years, they very likely would have succeeded. Then of course humans likely would be extinct because some other hominid species would have out-competed us by making better use of their time and resources.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

This is an odd debate isn't it. Each side tries to prove themselves solely by finding fault in the other side.

Very good point and it does seem a little odd. I think in many cases it's taken too far, rendering it to nothing more than adversarial differences and pride run amuck. Unfortunately, this is often times how it works though. The first thing to do is illustrate an area of need or lacking, and once the need is realized, then submit the provision to accomodate the need. In other words, it's not enough to say; "here we have a different theory for you to chew on." rather, "here is where your theory drops the ball and mine picks it up." One more important thing I'd like to reiterate is that it's not only ID-ists, Creationists, and religious fundamentalists that challenge aspects of evolution. They're the most vocal sure, but in many cases they're only seizing opportunities left for them by proponents of evolution who challenge it's most basic premises. Proponents of ID have gained some ground here and now it's time they establish themselves in science instead of standing behind a thick guard of Creationists and religious fundamentalists. This alone, should not ostracize them from the scientific community, but historically the work they had submitted was often little more detailed than a highschool thesis. They're working this out and they have attained some funding which can attract a more well-rounded group of scientists to draw from.

What's really "abnormal and undesireable in science" is when people bring up a theory who's basis is entirely outside the realm of science. Science is the study of natural laws.

The boundaries of natural science are indeed limited to natural phenomena, but let's consider this definition of science;
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
a. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
b. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

So yes, by definition, the boundaries of "natural science" exclude the supernatural, but they also exclude some other things as well and that would be those things not affirmed by the following;
- observation
- identification
- experimental investigation

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) In fact, the only scientific aspect of macro-evolution is a theoretical explanation of phenomena, but it doesn't even have enough evidence to bring it to a theory. The two are lumped together and each assumed as plausible as the other yet one enjoys a long history of observation, experimental investigation, and identification and the other? Not much more than imagination IMHO you may as well say; "god did it". To say that new genetic material has formed from a process unknown to produce different genes is to be believe in a natural process with supernatural capabilities and as such, limits itself to the same problems posed by those in opposition to ID. It is not testable, it is not obervable, and you cannot identify the beginning. If you insist on teaching one, perhaps others should insist on teaching the other. There is a point at which man knows very little and that point is speciation in regards to reptile to bird or the like. At this point, great faith in the supernatural is required and no experiment to date has illustrated the likelihood of the Darwinian model to account for the incredible variance of species we see today. It is simply not so. I'm not the only one saying this, read back through a list of the quotes I provided by those who are proponents of a theory not because of the merits of the theory, but because to think otherwise would lead them to the unthinkable; ID.

The two are simply unrelated, and to call one the other is a fallacy.

Just as micro and macro evolution are simply unrelated and to call one the other is a fallacy in my view. A view that is not whaning, it's growing. Cite for me one example of an experiment that succeeded in creating new genetic material. Then cite for me an explanation of how a retarded wing could benefit the transition between rodent/bird or rodent/bat. A species left in a dark cave may eventually produce offspring with skin folds over a useless eye, but in this case no new genetic material was introduced and in fact, the species is less complex. It is not a gradual incline, but decline. Afterall, this is what we generally observe, decline and decay. You may say it's an advantageous incline because of the dark environment, but that only holds true if the environment remains darkened. The species will return to it's original state within very few generations. Adaptation pulsates along with the environment and we have yet to find any organism that transcends it's genetic limitations to create wholly new species or even organs. 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. There is no adequate scientific model to account for a (what would have to be) transcendant species over it's adaptational limit. What do we see? Organisms exploding onto the scene. An interesting little blibbet I read;

Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?

The above is the title of a recent article in Science. Molecular biology is allowing evolutionists to examine the relatedness of numerous bacterial species, and recent results are nothing less than startling. Darwinian theory requires that all organisms are, ultimately, related to one another. Therefore, the genes of living species should demonstrate similarity based upon the point at which the species diverged from a common ancestor. Different kinds of genes (rRNA, in addition to the entire sequences of a couple dozen species of microorganisms) from the microbial kingdoms have been analyzed in the attempt to provide molecular evidence for macroevolution. An initial publication last year showed that "Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it." Current taxonomy classifies all living organisms into three kingdoms; eubacteria ("common" bacteria), Archaea ("ancient bacteria that are best known for living in extreme environments) and eukaryotes (all other living forms, including us). The current crisis involves the classification of species of eubacteria and Archaea. Some of the data suggest that certain eubacteria are more closely related to Archaea, and that certain Archaea are not related at all. In an examination of 13 fully sequenced genomes, including those of bacteria, Archaea, and the eukaryote, yeast, scientists found that each microbe shares between 77% and 17% of its genes with another organism, with no clear relationships between species. The results are so confused that some researchers are proposing a complete restructuring of the tree of life, including breaking up the Archaea and redistributing them among the eubacteria. Other researchers have suggested that eukaryotes are more primitive than prokaryotes (both eubacteria and Archaea). However, the fossil record does not support such an interpretation (prokaryotes clearly appeared before eukaryotes). 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.

This is why it's not really a fact that "scientific men rally to the defense of [evolution]", rather that they rally to object when the supernatural is disguised and paraded as the natural. In no other facet of science would it be accepted to theorize that natural laws were not always at play, but that at some time in the past, and not since then, a supernatural being intervened and did something unimaginable.

I believe it is equally mistaken to suppose a purely natural phenomena is capable of producing unimaginable results.

You don't see ID debates in geology about the origin of mountains, or in astronomy about constellations. The fact is that the abnormality is not the defense of evolution but rather the introduction of ID. And the irony is to claim (as I believe you have ebuddy) that the ID supporter is merely disturbing the blind faith in evolution, because it is only the persistence of ID claims that causes scientists to cling to their only alternative; if it weren't for ID, evolution would be questioned more often in the scientific community.

What can I say? I agree with this. It's entirely possible that scientists would be more comfortable publically debating one another on aspects of evolution if they weren't more concerned about proponents of ID finding some fuel for their fires. At the end of the day however, the point has already been made (and made well in my opinion) that "evolution" is not as cut and dry as it's more zealous proponents would have you believe. This leaves room for competing theories. If one is not empiracally testable, it's no better than the other. Really, neither are reasonably conclusive.

The answer of course is that we are currently living in a period of evolutionary equilibrium. There are no overwhelming changes in environment which would create new (or newly empty) niches for potential new species to fill (on the contrary, increasing human activity is eliminating niches at a high rate). The selective pressures in place today have been for a long long time, and what speciation they induce has not only already occurred, but is unlikely to drift (since the selective pressures are still in play). You can't show something occurring if it hasn't occurred in your lifetime.

Which makes it unscientific. They are still encouraged of course to learn everything they can, but you can't use one template for acceptable science and decide arbitrarily that one fits only because it's entirely natural. It still doesn't meet the requirements of science.

And if ID wasn't inherently outside the realm of science, this would apply to it as well.

It is I agree, but then so is macro-evolution in my view. This is really the crux of the silly debate though isn't it? I believe one thing lacks scientific merit using 2 or more criteria for reasonably conclusive falsification, and you believe one thing lacks scientific merit using 1 criteria.

If humans had decided to devote themselves to creating a selective pressure on wheat to produce fruit, or on pigs to produce wings, over about half a million years, they very likely would have succeeded.

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.

Then of course humans likely would be extinct because some other hominid species would have out-competed us by making better use of their time and resources.

I say the best way to advance us is to continue criticizing one anothers' works. This drives research and discovery.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by f1000

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Evolution may very well be how God "intelligently designs" life on Earth.

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.

[Zimphire]

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.

Because if you were being honest with yourself. Which you aren't.

You'd realize that was a horrible comparison.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Because if you were being honest with yourself. Which you aren't.

You'd realize that was a horrible comparison.

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

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

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

[macamac]

They actually have photos of NESSE.