Dissecting ID

In his comments on a new mechanism for evolution postulated by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks, Roger Lewin (Science 217:1239-1240, 1982) says

“Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is allowed for in Brooks and Wiley’s theory, but only as a minor influence. ‘It can affect survivorship’ says Brooks. 'It can weed out some of the complexity and so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. It may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.”’

The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists.? The model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground. Paleontologists seem to be enthralled by small populations.? I hasten to point out that ecologists and geneticists have not elucidated macro- evolutionary patterns: the gap has not been bridged from either side.1

With respect to neo-Darwinism, evolutionist G. A. Dover says:

The study of evolution should be removed from teleological computer simulations, thought experiments, and wrong-headed juggling of probabilities, and put back into the laboratory and the field. . . . Whilst there is so much more to learn, the neo-Darwinist synthesis should not be defended to death by blind watchmakers.2

1 Robert E. Ricklefs, "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution,"Science, Vol. 199, January 6, 1978, p. 59.

2 10 G. A. Dover (1988), cited in Margulis and Sagan, op. cit., p. 271.

Fossil discoveries can muddle our attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees?fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodgepodges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner?new features are often “cut and pasted”?on different groups at different times.

Neil Shubin, “Evolutionary Cut and Paste,” Nature (vol. 394, July 2, 1998), p. 12.

Prof. Derek Ager of the University at Swansea, Wales, in Proc. Geol. Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132 (1976) has stated

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther’s Raphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked.’ Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.”

Wow.

I am going to suggest that everyone who has more than 3 posts on this thread should go out and get laid. Seriously! It will do you all good.

Let me repeat this quote by Stephen Jay Gould (one of the most famous paleontogists of our time and noted macroevolutionist) one more time in case you missed it:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Let me repeat this quote by Stephen Jay Gould (one of the most famous paleontogists of our time and noted macroevolutionist) one more time in case you missed it:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
[/quote]

Gould’s critique of Darwinian evolution is very well known and documented. However, he couldn’t stand the ID theorists. He only pointed out that an alternative scientific reason based on empirical evidence could be possible, and natural selection may not be the reason for evolution. He is no friend of ID theorists. Also, he was more respected by the general public than the the science community (not to say he wasn’t respected) since he was very good at making difficult topics easy to understand for everyone.

Ager wrote about Catastrophism instead of evolution, but that is not hotly debated and only looks at certain aspects of evolution and the fossil record and not the whole. He is known for stating that we haven’t learned everything from the fossile records yet but they are still the best thing to go by. Also, Ager repeatedly told young earth creationists to stop mis-quoting him for support, as he couldn’t stand them either.

I’ve studied Noam Chomsky. My brother who teaches has studied Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky is a nut and knows as much about evolution as a street sweeper knows about brain surgery.

Mark Ridley:
“The theory of evolution is outstandingly the most important theory in biology.”

Evolution, Blackwell Scientific, Boston, 1983.

Ridley is a huge supporter of the TOE, and has written text books on it. In fact he supports the theory that the struggle for existence is blind and random.

The rest of what you posted is still not at all hotly debated. If Catastrophism could answer the questions of evolution better than current theories, then it has to be subject to testing like everything else. What is great to know is that there are other scientific ideas and currently minor theories that can be tested and verified to help us understand the natural world.

LOL, you couldt misrepresent the issue any more if you tried.

Gould’s theory that most morphological change happened during the punctuations of PE is the most controversial part of Punctuated Equilibria. It has also been rejected as an absolute because of contrary evidence. It is certainly not the cutting edge mainstream view that you represented it as. For instance the oldest remains of Homo sapiens have smaller braincases and are referred to as “archaic Homo sapiens” - and in that feature at least they are intermediate between modern Homo sapiens and Homo erectus.

The dominant view is that speciation is important but that morphological changes can occur in a more gradual way. Population cosntraint is important for PE. As theorized, small populations are able to build up beneficial mutations faster, especially at the periphery of the larger population where selection may be stronger. Sudden environmental changes are related to speciation bursts. From Cretaceous and Paleogene fossils, more species appear after transgressive events and flooding. It’s quite stable between these times.

In contrast to gradualism, “rapid” evolutionary bursts explained by Gould’s theory would take in the ballpark of 100,000 years (from Gould’s won stateemnts). Certainly this wold have nothing to do with the ridiculous creationist notion that Ardvarks need to give births to pigs to prove their version of “macroevolution”

Do you even understand anything that you cut and past or do you simply search creationist web site for this claptrap?

BTW, which one of the articles provides any evidence whatsoever for I.D./creationism??

I’m still waiting for you peer-reviewed journal article detailing why evolutionary mechainsms would cease at Genus level.

George Gilder, Discovery Institute: "What?s being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there?s a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content.?

I think we can all agree with Gilder on that. This thread is proof-positive of that. All we get from the creationist/ID side is critiques of evolutionary theory (some from evolutionists themselves mind you.) They somehow think that refuting evoltion will magically establish ID/creationism. Of course, since their theories are clearly not scientific theories they have no choice but to pursue this course of action. They have no scientific evidence on which their theories rest-no predicitive value, no usefulness, no testable hypotheses, no independent lines of inference.It’s a biblical interpretation for God’s sake. It really is a grand lesson in self-deception though. Meanwhile we see evolutionists providing alternative theories and critiques of modern evolutionary theory and you can see why biological evolution is such a robust and dynamic science.

[quote]pookie wrote:
… Was it an instantaneous phenomenon – they went from perfect to flawed as they stepped out of Eden – or a slow degenerative one, with each generation slowly “devolving” from perfection to our current fatassimus americanus specimen?
[/quote]

As they went further north the devolved into wiseassimus canadianus.

[quote]Massif wrote:
Wow.

I am going to suggest that everyone who has more than 3 posts on this thread should go out and get laid. Seriously! It will do you all good.[/quote]

LOL

For the record, I got laid about 11 times last week! But I intend to take your advice and get some more right away.

[quote]Floortom wrote:
Another crushing blow to Intelligent Design “theory”:

A recent article has filled another gap in our ignorance (and created two new gaps) about eye evolution.


Wow, empirical research and testing?? Who would have thought of such a thing? Certainly not the “God did it” or “it’s all in Genesis” folks!

[/quote]

Since ID cannot be proven or disproven I don’t think this is a crushing blow.

From today.

‘Intelligent Design’ Court Battle Begins

By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer

HARRISBURG, Pa. - “Intelligent design” is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district’s curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.
ADVERTISEMENT

“They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity,” said Eric Rothschild, an attorney representing eight families who are challenging the decision of the Dover Area School District.

But in his opening statement, the school district’s attorney defended Dover’s policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.

“This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda,” argued Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. “Dover’s modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education.” The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.

Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, the opening of the trial in federal court marked the latest legal chapter in the debate over the teaching of evolution in public school.

The eight families argue that the district policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

About 75 spectators crowded the courtroom of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III for the start of the non-jury trial. But the scene outside the courthouse was business as usual except for a lone woman reading the Bible.

Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district’s own policy made clear its religious intent.

Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.

It requires teachers to read a statement that says intelligent design differs from Darwin’s view and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more information.

Intelligent design, a concept some scholars have advanced over the past 15 years, holds that Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism ? a literal reading of the Bible’s story of creation ? camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.

Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: “There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory.”

On the other hand, he said, “Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community.”

Miller also challenged the accuracy of “Of Pandas and People” and said it almost entirely omits any discussion of what causes extinction. If nearly all original species are extinct, he said, the intelligent design creator was not very intelligent.

The history of evolution litigation dates back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.

In 1968, the
U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg.
President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.

In August, the Kansas Board of Education gave preliminary approval to science standards that allow intelligent design-style alternatives to be discussed alongside evolution.

Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center’s president and chief counsel, said Dover’s policy takes a modest approach.

“All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community,” Thompson said.

Two things stuck out for me in this article;

Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, “There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory.”

Thomas More center’s Richard Thompson, “All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community.”

From what I understand, the only controversy is the one invented by ID supporters.

I am being 100% serious in this post. I give up. I have defended evolutionary theory and the observed the empirical evidence that indicates its validity. Clearly, those who have looked at this evidence see something there that I do not. It is clear to me, that if they see something I do not, that I may be missing something. Those who believe, I’m asking you, show me what I can’t see. I want to know everything about this ‘intelligence’. How does it think, act, and feel? What does it want from us as a species? Why has it propagated new species? Will it continue to propagate them? I understand that no one individual can/does have all the answers, I’m just looking for a source to answer them or a method of finding out on my own. Please understand that I am very analytical by nature, and I am predisposed to doubt things so I admittedly will take some convincing, but I will say that I firmly believe that by committing solely to evolution, I am missing something. I would like to know what that something is.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
I will say that I firmly believe that by committing solely to evolution, I am missing something. I would like to know what that something is.[/quote]

Humility.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Humility.[/quote]

Thanks for your help Prof., really helped clear things right up for me. Good way to start me believing in YOUR ideas of intelligence.

I think if you look at my posts, nowhere do I say ID is not and cannot be the answer. I was and am on the fence. And in my perception, I’m not missing humility as I’ve lost no pride in ceding “defeat” (I use quotes so I won’t be classified as trying to “win”). Kinda hard to get much more humble than “I don’t know.”

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I will say that I firmly believe that by committing solely to evolution, I am missing something. I would like to know what that something is.

Humility.[/quote]

That would imply that there is some opposing theory that has provided sufficient evidence to warrant consideration, and as far as I know, there isn’t any.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Humility.

Thanks for your help Prof., really helped clear things right up for me. Good way to start me believing in YOUR ideas of intelligence.

I think if you look at my posts, nowhere do I say ID is not and cannot be the answer. I was and am on the fence. And in my perception, I’m not missing humility as I’ve lost no pride in ceding “defeat” (I use quotes so I won’t be classified as trying to “win”). Kinda hard to get much more humble than “I don’t know.”[/quote]

Dude, it isn’t my job or anyone else’s to MAKE you believe or start you believing. That choice is yours and yours alone. If you had the slightest thought in your head that you, or “we” as humans, are not the epitome of being, you would understand what I meant. Regardless of what religion you look into, they are all based on the concept of believing…believing that something greater than us brought us into being. That doesn’t come from anyone else but you.

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I will say that I firmly believe that by committing solely to evolution, I am missing something. I would like to know what that something is.

Humility.

That would imply that there is some opposing theory that has provided sufficient evidence to warrant consideration, and as far as I know, there isn’t any.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. It implies the belief that we may never understand everything there is to know about the universe and requires faith that there is a greater being. My faith isn’t based on scientific studies alone (even though science confirms for me what I already believe the more I learn). No one has stated otherwise. You look for reasons not to believe. I look for reasons because I believe. It makes me no less a scientist.