Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Fergy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.

What are you talking about? ;\

When I said observable reality, I was referring to well… observable reality (evidence for evolution). I.e. endogenous retroviral DNA, human chromosome 2, etc. etc. etc.
The list goes on and on.[/quote]

But from an analytical perspective that means nothing, you are infering or presupposing in all instances you mentioned.

So like I said they are both theories to fill the gaps.

262

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.

What are you talking about? ;\

When I said observable reality, I was referring to well… observable reality (evidence for evolution). I.e. endogenous retroviral DNA, human chromosome 2, etc. etc. etc.
The list goes on and on.

But from an analytical perspective that means nothing, you are infering or presupposing in all instances you mentioned.

So like I said they are both theories to fill the gaps.[/quote]

And I think much of the argument is nulled by the fact as I am only arguing about the origine of existence. I have stated before I support alot of the components involved in the theoretical concepts, such as natural selection, genetic shift and other phenomena.

My argument deals with certain barriers in these genetic manipulations.

263

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Alffi wrote:
A clear fanciful example, though completely serious, is the macroevolutionary impossibility of ever finding an animal such as a Pegasus. Since a Pegasus would be a mammal closely related to the horse, its wings would be considered derived characters. However, Pegasus wings cannot be modifications of its ancestors’ structures, since the immediate predicted ancestors of Pegasi and horses had no possible structures there to modify (Futuyma 1998, p. 110). This carefully crafted argument is hard to falsify. If such a Pegasus horse was ever found, then it could be easy to prescribe evolution as an explanation and posit the existence of intermediates which may never be found.

This is absurd. You discuss something that can’t be found, especially since it would be physically impossible for something the size horse to fly, even it it has wings. We could actually use the absence of pegasi fossils as evidence for evolution. (Very weak evidence to be sure!)

Then you state that if it were found, that evolution would be try to describe it in clever terms that would be hard to falsify. What is even harder to falsify is a hypothetical argument about a creature that will never be found.[/quote]

Maybe Pegasus is a myth, but you can make the same argument with unicorns, the tooth fairy, dragons, and mermaids, so there!

264

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
Glad to make your case :wink: .

I am indeed blinded by observable reality.

Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.[/quote]

One, and I mean one, modern rabbit skeleton the wrong piece of rock and you have falsified the whole theory.

So the idea that it is not observable is nonsense.

265

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.

What are you talking about? ;\

When I said observable reality, I was referring to well… observable reality (evidence for evolution). I.e. endogenous retroviral DNA, human chromosome 2, etc. etc. etc.
The list goes on and on.

But from an analytical perspective that means nothing, you are infering or presupposing in all instances you mentioned.

So like I said they are both theories to fill the gaps.

And I think much of the argument is nulled by the fact as I am only arguing about the origine of existence. I have stated before I support alot of the components involved in the theoretical concepts, such as natural selection, genetic shift and other phenomena.

My argument deals with certain barriers in these genetic manipulations.
[/quote]

The origin of existence is part of the ET?

266

[quote]orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
Glad to make your case :wink: .

I am indeed blinded by observable reality.

Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.

One, and I mean one, modern rabbit skeleton the wrong piece of rock and you have falsified the whole theory.

So the idea that it is not observable is nonsense.
[/quote]

You think every researcher out there would publicly announce it if they did?

267

I don´t know , only if he wants to be the most famous biologist since Darwin?

268

[quote]orion wrote:
I don´t know , only if he wants to be the most famous biologist since Darwin?

[/quote]

And have his entire world of beliefs come crashing down. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are some scientists so dedicated to the theory they might go to unethical means to hold onto it. It happens in all science, but especially when there are political or religious implications to the research.

I’m just saying even field research and fossils are manipulated/glossed over, est.

Maybe they label an artifact as coming from an incorrect layer, or explain it away with nonexistent earthquakes, tree roots or landslides in the area.

269

[quote]orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.

What are you talking about? ;\

When I said observable reality, I was referring to well… observable reality (evidence for evolution). I.e. endogenous retroviral DNA, human chromosome 2, etc. etc. etc.
The list goes on and on.

But from an analytical perspective that means nothing, you are infering or presupposing in all instances you mentioned.

So like I said they are both theories to fill the gaps.

And I think much of the argument is nulled by the fact as I am only arguing about the origine of existence. I have stated before I support alot of the components involved in the theoretical concepts, such as natural selection, genetic shift and other phenomena.

My argument deals with certain barriers in these genetic manipulations.

The origin of existence is part of the ET?

[/quote]

In our school systems they teach them hand in hand. My major complaint. But From the genetic limitations alone I have a hard time with the extents to which evolution is used to fill in the gaps.

Like I’ve said natural selection yes, but full blown evolution no. To see small shifts yes.

The whole idea gets too convoluted and takes just as much faith and filling in the details as saying one being designed this group of organisms, no one said they couldn’t change to better suite their enviornment over time.

270

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
I don´t know , only if he wants to be the most famous biologist since Darwin?

And have his entire world of beliefs come crashing down. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are some scientists so dedicated to the theory they might go to unethical means to hold onto it. It happens in all science, but especially when there are political or religious implications to the research.

I’m just saying even field research and fossils are manipulated/glossed over, est.

Maybe they label an artifact as coming from an incorrect layer, or explain it away with nonexistent earthquakes, tree roots or landslides in the area.[/quote]

There is a difference though between sticking to a paradigm that makes sense and a “liberal agenda”.

A lot of people seem to confuse the two.

271

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.

What are you talking about? ;\

When I said observable reality, I was referring to well… observable reality (evidence for evolution). I.e. endogenous retroviral DNA, human chromosome 2, etc. etc. etc.
The list goes on and on.

But from an analytical perspective that means nothing, you are infering or presupposing in all instances you mentioned.

So like I said they are both theories to fill the gaps.

And I think much of the argument is nulled by the fact as I am only arguing about the origine of existence. I have stated before I support alot of the components involved in the theoretical concepts, such as natural selection, genetic shift and other phenomena.

My argument deals with certain barriers in these genetic manipulations.

The origin of existence is part of the ET?

In our school systems they teach them hand in hand. My major complaint. But From the genetic limitations alone I have a hard time with the extents to which evolution is used to fill in the gaps.

Like I’ve said natural selection yes, but full blown evolution no. To see small shifts yes.

The whole idea gets too convoluted and takes just as much faith and filling in the details as saying one being designed this group of organisms, no one said they couldn’t change to better suite their enviornment over time.[/quote]

so you would think that small steps are possible, but that a creature looks and acts entirely different after millions of such small steps is out of the question?

272

[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
I don´t know , only if he wants to be the most famous biologist since Darwin?

And have his entire world of beliefs come crashing down. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are some scientists so dedicated to the theory they might go to unethical means to hold onto it. It happens in all science, but especially when there are political or religious implications to the research.

I’m just saying even field research and fossils are manipulated/glossed over, est.

Maybe they label an artifact as coming from an incorrect layer, or explain it away with nonexistent earthquakes, tree roots or landslides in the area.

There is a difference though between sticking to a paradigm that makes sense and a “liberal agenda”.

A lot of people seem to confuse the two.

[/quote]

Including researchers.

273

[quote]orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.

What are you talking about? ;\

When I said observable reality, I was referring to well… observable reality (evidence for evolution). I.e. endogenous retroviral DNA, human chromosome 2, etc. etc. etc.
The list goes on and on.

But from an analytical perspective that means nothing, you are infering or presupposing in all instances you mentioned.

So like I said they are both theories to fill the gaps.

And I think much of the argument is nulled by the fact as I am only arguing about the origine of existence. I have stated before I support alot of the components involved in the theoretical concepts, such as natural selection, genetic shift and other phenomena.

My argument deals with certain barriers in these genetic manipulations.

The origin of existence is part of the ET?

In our school systems they teach them hand in hand. My major complaint. But From the genetic limitations alone I have a hard time with the extents to which evolution is used to fill in the gaps.

Like I’ve said natural selection yes, but full blown evolution no. To see small shifts yes.

The whole idea gets too convoluted and takes just as much faith and filling in the details as saying one being designed this group of organisms, no one said they couldn’t change to better suite their enviornment over time.

so you would think that small steps are possible, but that a creature looks and acts entirely different after millions of such small steps is out of the question?

[/quote]

Given the ruggedness of certain parts of the genome yes, even bacteria have parts of their genome which don’t change and are verywell protected from change.

There are limitations to the amount of change in the genomic design. And changes that would need to occur to support the full theory of evolution would in fact be fatal to the organism.

274

[quote]ninearms wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
ninearms wrote:

  • Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?

Sadly, this one actually makes sense. Testicles work best when they are a bit cooler than the rest of the body. Scots in kilts have high sperm counts, for example.

So remember: boxers, not briefs.

It makes sense to keep them cool, yes, but would a designer really not offer them any protection from damage given their critical fucntion?
[/quote]

-Testicular injuries are fairly uncommon. Despite the retarded attitudes about them being funny promoted in commercials and film.
-Having testes external makes it easier to detect cancer.
-According to one hypothesis,testicles are external to protect them from the impacts of movements like jumps. The elasticity of the scrotum allows testicles to brush off most potential impacts. It is reported that women’s ski jumping has been discouraged on the basis that it could harm ovaries which obviously are immobile relative to testes.

As I said in my long post, all of the “bad design” arguments eventually lead to a Clark Kent who IS immune to kryptonite.

275

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Alffi wrote:
A clear fanciful example, though completely serious, is the macroevolutionary impossibility of ever finding an animal such as a Pegasus. Since a Pegasus would be a mammal closely related to the horse, its wings would be considered derived characters.

However, Pegasus wings cannot be modifications of its ancestors’ structures, since the immediate predicted ancestors of Pegasi and horses had no possible structures there to modify (Futuyma 1998, p. 110). This carefully crafted argument is hard to falsify.

If such a Pegasus horse was ever found, then it could be easy to prescribe evolution as an explanation and posit the existence of intermediates which may never be found.

This is absurd. You discuss something that can’t be found, especially since it would be physically impossible for something the size horse to fly, even it it has wings. We could actually use the absence of pegasi fossils as evidence for evolution. (Very weak evidence to be sure!)

Then you state that if it were found, that evolution would be try to describe it in clever terms that would be hard to falsify. What is even harder to falsify is a hypothetical argument about a creature that will never be found.[/quote]

I’m not sure if we understand each other but it was not me that proposed the horse you say cannot fly,it was the evolution crowd. I suppose they thought it would be a fanciful enough example to use so their evidence would be safe from falsification; assume that it will never be found.

276

Yay! Conspiracy theories!

277

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Yay! Conspiracy theories![/quote]

If you are talking about me, I’m not saying that there is some conspiracy out there. I’m just saying that field research and even “hard evidence” need to be taken with a grain of salt. And it goes on both sides of the argument.

If someone came out tomorrow claiming to have found a missing link that proved evolution, I’d be skeptical (that claim has been made before and turned out to be false). On the other hand if someone found a rabbit in a layer much earlier than it was supposed to exist that disproved evolution, I’d be skeptical of that too.

Then again I’m a cynic.

278

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yay! Conspiracy theories!

If you are talking about me, I’m not saying that there is some conspiracy out there. I’m just saying that field research and even “hard evidence” need to be taken with a grain of salt. And it goes on both sides of the argument.

If someone came out tomorrow claiming to have found a missing link that proved evolution, I’d be skeptical (that claim has been made before and turned out to be false). On the other hand if someone found a rabbit in a layer much earlier than it was supposed to exist that disproved evolution, I’d be skeptical of that too.

Then again I’m a cynic.[/quote]

No sounds like rational thought to me.

Verifiable reporducable data = science

But am an analytical scientist not a theorist.

279

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Fergy wrote:
Glad to make your case :wink: .

I am indeed blinded by observable reality.

Observable, wow that’s awesome, you are the first, you must be some sort of god or demigod to understand how to manipulate time and observe this.

One, and I mean one, modern rabbit skeleton the wrong piece of rock and you have falsified the whole theory.

So the idea that it is not observable is nonsense.

You think every researcher out there would publicly announce it if they did?[/quote]

Yes, or rather HELL YES. There are lots of discoveries being published that overturn our existing understanding of how evolution has occurred. Nothing is better for your career as a research scientist than to come up with irrefutable evidence that redefines a field. For example, the recently discovered ‘hobbits’ of Indonesia (Homo floresiensis) are causing the evolution of the hominids to be reviewed. There are a bunch of theories being presented, from these being diseased humans to these being remnants of the far older Australopithecus (e.g. ‘Lucy’).

So, scientists are quite eager to present evidence that our understanding of evolution is wrong.

But, that is how science works. And to date, that has only resulted in producing a more robust theory of evolution. So bring on the evidence, that is how science works.

280

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yay! Conspiracy theories!

If you are talking about me, I’m not saying that there is some conspiracy out there. I’m just saying that field research and even “hard evidence” need to be taken with a grain of salt. And it goes on both sides of the argument.

If someone came out tomorrow claiming to have found a missing link that proved evolution, I’d be skeptical (that claim has been made before and turned out to be false). On the other hand if someone found a rabbit in a layer much earlier than it was supposed to exist that disproved evolution, I’d be skeptical of that too.

Then again I’m a cynic.[/quote]

Give me an example of a ‘missing link’ that proved to be false. But first define what you mean by missing link. Evolution does not claim that there are missing links between species. It claims that there are common ancestors.

It is almost impossible to have a complete picture of evolution, given that we are basing our results on incomplete evidence (in some cases the discovery of a single skull is world news).

Hypothetically, if a skull was discovered that suggested that ‘Lucy’ was more of a ‘cousin’ than an ‘ancestor’ of modern humans, that would be a major rewrite of the theory of human evolution (‘natural history’). This only means that Lucy and modern humans would have a common ancestor that was more ancient than Lucy. Such a claim would have practically no effect at all on the theory of biological evolution (‘theoretical science’).