Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Makavali wrote:
BH6 wrote:
The theory of evolution causes so much controversy in the religious fundamentalist circles because it strikes at the very heart of their beliefs, that mankind was created by god. To believe otherwise is a challenge to their entire faith system.

If god didn’t interact with man at his creation, than perhaps he didn’t interact with man at all. Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile those opposing views of science and religion.

Intelligent design is not a theory, it is an idea or at best a hypothesis. Intelligence design is ultimately not testable and not adaptable because at the root of the argument you run into “GOD”.

GOD requires faith, faith is not measureable. The theory of evolution is a testable, measureable, adaptable theory that doesn’t claim to answer every question about the origin of man. It is simply the best explanation so far that has stood up to testing, measuring, and adapting to new findings.

Will the theory of evolution be the same in 50 years, absolutely not, new findings will create change in the theory, or create the need for a whole new theory. Intelligent design however will be the same, because of the “God” issue, it will not be able to accomodate new findings.

You almost want to ask them if evolution could in fact be God, or at least the will of.[/quote]

I’m more interested in why we aren’t more actively trying to find a more sound way of explaining how wee got here. Macro evolution itself is a pretty ridiculous concept. Why aren’t we looking for somethnig more substantial?

82

[quote]borrek wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Honestly, there is zilch for evidence of macro evolution. It’s a pipe dream at this point. Creationism is actually viable to some extent, and IMO the best theory we have.

I’m always trying to learn more about religion but like everyone else don’t know anything really. Hence my agnosticism.

A pipe dream? Look, microevolution is FACT. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence that points toward macroevolution. As Beowulf said, biology makes virtually no sense without it.

Why is it such a huge leap to assume that hey, if we KNOw this happens over 50 or 100 years, why wouldn’t it happen to a much greater extent over 10 million years?

No matter how much Christians will try to tell you otherwise, it’s just not very much of a leap at all.

Micro evolution is a fact. species will change slightly over time, but they are still that same species. Macro evolution is something becoming something else totally different over time. We’ve NEVER seen this happen, and there is NO evidence for it other then shady man made lineages of animal species.

I’m not even religious. I’m just willing to recognize we’re being taught that evolution is a fact, when it is most likely not.

I don’t agree with the “most likely” part. It surely isn’t fact, but neither is a lot of other things we’re taught.

I just don’t understand why most creationists take such issue with evolution. Evolution could just as easily be a tool of God.

[/quote]

My “issue” with evolution is that we’re teaching an entire subject in our schools (biology) that is based on an ASSUMPTION that we all EVOLVED from a common ancestor. I have no problem with micro evolution, genetics and how we change over time.

However that does not mean we should be teaching FALSE INFORMATION about how a type of being turns into another completely different one at school.

For the same reason I called my bio teacher out on saying we should be eating mostly carbs in our diets. It’s not true, and basing a good portion of the corriculum on something that has ZERO evidence is a waste of not only taxpayer dollars but of people’s time.

I never said I wanted creationism taught in school, but macro evolution needs to stay out too, unless they are both looked at.

83

[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Gene_lasker wrote:
All of you guys on here who are in favor of intelligent design and somehow against evolution are complete and utter morons.

Go to a research university and enroll in an Intro to Biology Course. That should clear up some of your issues.

  1. Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific theory

  2. Theories explain what goes on in the world. They explain facts. Theories are not something some scientist thinks up when he wakes up in the morning. Facts are the worlds data. Theories explain this data.

  3. There is no such thing as MACRO and MICRO evolution. They are one in the same. These notions came about due to the popularization of science.

Intelligent Design doesn’t account for the fact of:

Change in allele frequencies throughout generations within a population. Evolution does.

I love when people start an argument out by calling the believers in the opposing view morons. I am sure there is a latin word for this kind of argument, but I don’t know it.

As far as Intelligent design goes, wether you believe it or not aren’t you the lease bit curious how the irreducible biological processes (like the healing process) and structures (like the eye) can be fully explained by evolution theory.
[/quote]

Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?

Over many thousands of years, evolution can result in the formation of highly complex structures with independently functioning parts, even if it is only acting on a single gene at a time.

All that is necessary is that each intermediate step in the formation of the structure provides an adaptive advantage on its own, as each step in the process will be subjected to natural selection.

The human eye could have started simply as a few basic photoreceptor cells. To develop from that stage through to a more complex structure simply requires each tiny step in the process to provide a genuine advantage to the organism.

Even if the improvement is only relatively small, natural selection will still cause the adaptation to spread throughout the species over many generations.

Even the actual structure of the human eye tends to support the theory of evolution over intelligent design. For example, for some reason, the neural connections involved in transmitting information from the photoreceptor cells towards the brain are located in front of the photoreceptor cells, instead of behind the retina.

This means that the neural connections block some of the light from reaching the retina, which results in a reduction in visual quality.

Why would the creator design the human eye in such an illogical way, rather than having these nerve cells located behind the retina as is the case in some other species?

There are many other similar examples like this that simply make no sense at all when looked at from the perspective of intelligent design. Evolutionary theory on the other hand can easily explain why you would expect to observe such design flaws in highly complex structures.

84

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
BH6 wrote:
The theory of evolution causes so much controversy in the religious fundamentalist circles because it strikes at the very heart of their beliefs, that mankind was created by god. To believe otherwise is a challenge to their entire faith system.

If god didn’t interact with man at his creation, than perhaps he didn’t interact with man at all. Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile those opposing views of science and religion.

Intelligent design is not a theory, it is an idea or at best a hypothesis. Intelligence design is ultimately not testable and not adaptable because at the root of the argument you run into “GOD”.

GOD requires faith, faith is not measureable. The theory of evolution is a testable, measureable, adaptable theory that doesn’t claim to answer every question about the origin of man. It is simply the best explanation so far that has stood up to testing, measuring, and adapting to new findings.

Will the theory of evolution be the same in 50 years, absolutely not, new findings will create change in the theory, or create the need for a whole new theory. Intelligent design however will be the same, because of the “God” issue, it will not be able to accomodate new findings.

You almost want to ask them if evolution could in fact be God, or at least the will of.

I’m more interested in why we aren’t more actively trying to find a more sound way of explaining how wee got here. Macro evolution itself is a pretty ridiculous concept. Why aren’t we looking for somethnig more substantial?[/quote]

Please explain why you believe that macroevolution is a ridiculous concept.

Be specific.

85

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
BH6 wrote:
The theory of evolution causes so much controversy in the religious fundamentalist circles because it strikes at the very heart of their beliefs, that mankind was created by god. To believe otherwise is a challenge to their entire faith system.

If god didn’t interact with man at his creation, than perhaps he didn’t interact with man at all. Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile those opposing views of science and religion.

Intelligent design is not a theory, it is an idea or at best a hypothesis. Intelligence design is ultimately not testable and not adaptable because at the root of the argument you run into “GOD”.

GOD requires faith, faith is not measureable. The theory of evolution is a testable, measureable, adaptable theory that doesn’t claim to answer every question about the origin of man. It is simply the best explanation so far that has stood up to testing, measuring, and adapting to new findings.

Will the theory of evolution be the same in 50 years, absolutely not, new findings will create change in the theory, or create the need for a whole new theory. Intelligent design however will be the same, because of the “God” issue, it will not be able to accomodate new findings.

You almost want to ask them if evolution could in fact be God, or at least the will of.

I’m more interested in why we aren’t more actively trying to find a more sound way of explaining how wee got here. Macro evolution itself is a pretty ridiculous concept. Why aren’t we looking for somethnig more substantial?[/quote]

I just wish people were more sceptical about evolution than just blindly accepting it as fact because that is what was taught to them in High School in their intro to bio class. You can have a healthy scepticism without being a fundamentalist Chrisitian

86

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Nothing to do with evolution. Evolution =/= the origin of life. You’re thinking of abiogenisis, something that is taught as VERY tentative in schools.
[/quote]

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but an old experiment about this ver subject yielded some more proof about the possibility of biogenisis:

87

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Razorslim wrote:
Gene_lasker wrote:
All of you guys on here who are in favor of intelligent design and somehow against evolution are complete and utter morons.

Go to a research university and enroll in an Intro to Biology Course. That should clear up some of your issues.

  1. Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific theory

  2. Theories explain what goes on in the world. They explain facts. Theories are not something some scientist thinks up when he wakes up in the morning. Facts are the worlds data. Theories explain this data.

  3. There is no such thing as MACRO and MICRO evolution. They are one in the same. These notions came about due to the popularization of science.

Intelligent Design doesn’t account for the fact of:

Change in allele frequencies throughout generations within a population. Evolution does.

I love when people start an argument out by calling the believers in the opposing view morons. I am sure there is a latin word for this kind of argument, but I don’t know it.

As far as Intelligent design goes, wether you believe it or not aren’t you the lease bit curious how the irreducible biological processes (like the healing process) and structures (like the eye) can be fully explained by evolution theory.

Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?

Over many thousands of years, evolution can result in the formation of highly complex structures with independently functioning parts, even if it is only acting on a single gene at a time.

All that is necessary is that each intermediate step in the formation of the structure provides an adaptive advantage on its own, as each step in the process will be subjected to natural selection.

The human eye could have started simply as a few basic photoreceptor cells. To develop from that stage through to a more complex structure simply requires each tiny step in the process to provide a genuine advantage to the organism.

Even if the improvement is only relatively small, natural selection will still cause the adaptation to spread throughout the species over many generations.

Even the actual structure of the human eye tends to support the theory of evolution over intelligent design. For example, for some reason, the neural connections involved in transmitting information from the photoreceptor cells towards the brain are located in front of the photoreceptor cells, instead of behind the retina.

This means that the neural connections block some of the light from reaching the retina, which results in a reduction in visual quality.

Why would the creator design the human eye in such an illogical way, rather than having these nerve cells located behind the retina as is the case in some other species?

There are many other similar examples like this that simply make no sense at all when looked at from the perspective of intelligent design. Evolutionary theory on the other hand can easily explain why you would expect to observe such design flaws in highly complex structures.

[/quote]

There is no doubt in my mind that evolutionary theory can explain the existence of complex biological structures. A lot of evolutionist have used the “scaffolding hypothesis” as a means of refuting the irreducible complexity of some biological systems.

We are not arguing that evolutionary theory exists, which it does, we are arguing that the transition fossils to show how a cluster of photoreceptors in a simple invertabrate managed to transform itself step by step, cell by cell, mutated bit of DNA by mutated bit of DNA into the complex vision system we see in advanced mammals. It does not exist. It is all unproven theory.

88

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?

[/quote]

-Honest question alert-
How does evolution explain the development of corresponding sexual organs with genetic mutation? Like, how did “we” evolve from being single celled organisms into reproductive systems that match and such.

-Honest question alert-

89

[quote]Corrosion wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

Nothing to do with evolution. Evolution =/= the origin of life. You’re thinking of abiogenisis, something that is taught as VERY tentative in schools.

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but an old experiment about this ver subject yielded some more proof about the possibility of biogenisis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment[/quote]

The Miller-Urey experiment is well known for embodying both standpoints. Evolutionists claim how it proves life could have started on it’s own, and creationists are quick to point out that the experiment was one where Intelligent Design (of the researchers) was needed.

In the end all it proves is that a certain chemical reaction CAN occur. Does nothing to answer anything real.

90

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Why do so many people find it so difficult to comprehend how a complex structure such as the human eye could come about through the process of evolution?

-Honest question alert-
How does evolution explain the development of corresponding sexual organs with genetic mutation? Like, how did “we” evolve from being single celled organisms into reproductive systems that match and such.

-Honest question alert-[/quote]

Mix and match = more genetic variation. Asexual reproduction would result in the same shit. Not a good idea in a world where the strongest thrive and he weak perish.

91

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
I’m more interested in why we aren’t more actively trying to find a more sound way of explaining how wee got here. Macro evolution itself is a pretty ridiculous concept. Why aren’t we looking for somethnig more substantial?[/quote]

Christianity is a pretty ridiculous concept. So is Intelligent Design. Some guy in the clouds didn’t create us.

Note how I’m not backing up what I say here.

92

I just dont understand why people even debate IDers/creationists. They’re a joke–totally irrelevant. Other than some backwards pockets in the US and the Muslim Middle East no one takes them seriously at all. Just continue to laugh at them and ignore them. They’ll go away eventually.

Just lol@ the “Macroevolution has never proven!!” dullards. Could you imagine how deluded and ignorant one would have to be to make that statement? Why even try to engage such a moron in a debate?

93

[quote]Makavali wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
I’m more interested in why we aren’t more actively trying to find a more sound way of explaining how wee got here. Macro evolution itself is a pretty ridiculous concept. Why aren’t we looking for somethnig more substantial?

Christianity is a pretty ridiculous concept. So is Intelligent Design. Some guy in the clouds didn’t create us.

Note how I’m not backing up what I say here.[/quote]

Yet again, I’m not religious. I’m not defending ID. But I think evolution is equally, if not more likely to be bullshit.

94

[quote]Floortom wrote:
I just dont understand why people even debate IDers/creationists. They’re a joke–totally irrelevant. Other than some backwards pockets in the US and the Muslim Middle East no one takes them seriously at all. Just continue to laugh at them and ignore them. They’ll go away eventually.

Just lol@ the “Macroevolution has never proven!!” dullards. Could you imagine how deluded and ignorant one would have to be to make that statement? Why even try to engage such a moron in a debate?[/quote]

Wait… show me some evidence for macro evolution.

oh wait.

95

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
BH6 wrote:
The theory of evolution causes so much controversy in the religious fundamentalist circles because it strikes at the very heart of their beliefs, that mankind was created by god. To believe otherwise is a challenge to their entire faith system.

If god didn’t interact with man at his creation, than perhaps he didn’t interact with man at all. Intelligent Design is an attempt to reconcile those opposing views of science and religion.

Intelligent design is not a theory, it is an idea or at best a hypothesis. Intelligence design is ultimately not testable and not adaptable because at the root of the argument you run into “GOD”.

GOD requires faith, faith is not measureable. The theory of evolution is a testable, measureable, adaptable theory that doesn’t claim to answer every question about the origin of man. It is simply the best explanation so far that has stood up to testing, measuring, and adapting to new findings.

Will the theory of evolution be the same in 50 years, absolutely not, new findings will create change in the theory, or create the need for a whole new theory. Intelligent design however will be the same, because of the “God” issue, it will not be able to accomodate new findings.

You almost want to ask them if evolution could in fact be God, or at least the will of.

I’m more interested in why we aren’t more actively trying to find a more sound way of explaining how wee got here. Macro evolution itself is a pretty ridiculous concept. Why aren’t we looking for somethnig more substantial?

Please explain why you believe that macroevolution is a ridiculous concept.

Be specific.

[/quote]

For the same reasons stated above. There is NO factual evidence for it. We have never seen species change into other species. We will only see slight variation within that species. Mutations can’t cause evolution because they cna only scramble existing genetic information. If we can trace our lineages back to micro organisms, do they have eyes or have other advanced organ structures like us primates do? How did the genetic information to create eyes get there?

sorry, you lose.

96

[quote]borrek wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
I know a lot of scientists. I know of none that believe in God. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist; but it should tell you something.

I’m a scientist. I believe in God. I know a lot of scientists. The vaaaaast majority of them believe in God.

Perhaps it is location specific.

It’s possible. I’m talking about the Midwestern US, which is not exactly known as the Bible Belt, but at the same time is not as Liberal as the west coast.

An interesting point though is that most of these scientists were holders of Doctorates. People like to sometimes say that more educated people are less religious, but I personally think that is just a cognitive heuristic, and an attempt to call the religious “ignorant”.[/quote]

I don’t think that anyone who knows anything about the history of physics would imply that belief in God is a measure of intelligence.
That said, based on personal experience, less people of an intellectual nature believe in God.

97

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

For the same reasons stated above. There is NO factual evidence for it. We have never seen species change into other species. We will only see slight variation within that species. Mutations can’t cause evolution because they cna only scramble existing genetic information. If we can trace our lineages back to micro organisms, do they have eyes or have other advanced organ structures like us primates do? How did the genetic information to create eyes get there?

sorry, you lose.[/quote]

I’ll bite, and bring up the classic Darwinian Godsend (haha)

How do you explain pelvises and femurs in whales?

You like the idea that eyes are too complex to be macroevolutionary, but to me its pretty easy to explain. Many single-celled organisms photosynthesize. It stands to reason that an ability to tell if they are in an area of high light is beneficial. Those that couldn’t detect light would die without feeding their chloroplasts. The fittest survived, and all of those little critters can now sense light.

So some can sense light, and those that can more efficiently sense light get more energy and are more fit to reproduce. The organisms could be eaten by other organisms, and all of the sudden the ones who can sense a blockage of light (by the predator being close) survive whereas their more blind brothers die. At that point the ones who can more efficiently detect their predator’s proximity survive so the ocular detection evolves. etc etc etc not that much of a stretch.

98

[quote]borrek wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:

For the same reasons stated above. There is NO factual evidence for it. We have never seen species change into other species. We will only see slight variation within that species. Mutations can’t cause evolution because they cna only scramble existing genetic information. If we can trace our lineages back to micro organisms, do they have eyes or have other advanced organ structures like us primates do? How did the genetic information to create eyes get there?

sorry, you lose.

I’ll bite, and bring up the classic Darwinian Godsend (haha)

How do you explain pelvises and femurs in whales?

You like the idea that eyes are too complex to be macroevolutionary, but to me its pretty easy to explain. Many single-celled organisms photosynthesize. It stands to reason that an ability to tell if they are in an area of high light is beneficial. Those that couldn’t detect light would die without feeding their chloroplasts. The fittest survived, and all of those little critters can now sense light.

So some can sense light, and those that can more efficiently sense light get more energy and are more fit to reproduce. The organisms could be eaten by other organisms, and all of the sudden the ones who can sense a blockage of light (by the predator being close) survive whereas their more blind brothers die. At that point the ones who can more efficiently detect their predator’s proximity survive so the ocular detection evolves. etc etc etc not that much of a stretch.
[/quote]

why don’t these micro organisms have that ability today?

and

"Whale pelvic bones
"The existence in whales of transitory teeth and of small bones buried in the flesh, but corresponding to the pelvis, the femur and the tibia, is commonly regarded as a proof of their descent from ancestors of the tetrapod type with functional teeth; but in the first place some anatomists consider that these structures have an important role in the developmental process; in the second place, we have no proof of a descent from ancestors in which these structures were more strongly developed; in the third place, it is clear that if they exist now, this is not primarily because they existed in the past, but because actual present causes operate to produce them.

What such cases like those of anatomical ‘convergence’ and general homology actually demonstrate is that there are large numbers of organisms, differing considerably in the details of structure but constructed on the same fundamental plan. However this is no proof of descent from one original ancestor of this anatomical type. This itself requires proof." (Thompson 1956)

"The propulsion of whales through the water is by means of a horizontally disposed tail. On the hypothesis that whales are transformed land animals it is often said that they have lost their hind limbs. In support of this the two small internal bones of the femur adjacent to the pelvis are said to be all that remains of the hind legs. There is no evidence from the fossil record that hind legs in whales have gradually wasted away since, … no fossils of an alleged land mammal in the transitional stage have been found. Further, it is the Right Whale, Balaena, alone, the most highly ‘adapted’ to aquatic life, which has these bones inside the body - no other species has them. There is reason to believe that the bones in question may act as strengthening bones to the genital wall." (Cousins 1964)

The temporary teeth in the foetus of the whale play an important part in the formation of the jaw, much as the milk teeth of a child do in the human. Do we claim that human milk teeth represent an ancestral type? If we do, where is it? If not why not?"

http://www.the-gospel.net/evolution/whales.htm

99

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Mutations can’t cause evolution because they cna only scramble existing genetic information. If we can trace our lineages back to micro organisms, do they have eyes or have other advanced organ structures like us primates do? How did the genetic information to create eyes get there?

sorry, you lose.[/quote]

Mutations can certainly produce novel genetic structures. They can only involve replacing one AGTC base with another, but this can create a novel arrangement that was not present in either parent, and perhaps a gene that is novel to the specie.

The current understanding of how genes get expressed is limited but increasing rapidly. Over time, we will begin to understand how genes are turned on and turned off during development. The questions you raise are being explored. In order to answer them, you don’t only need to understand the structure of the DNA, you also need to understand the mechanisms of gene expression. You can start at Regulation of gene expression - Wikipedia

“Sorry, you loose” is a bit premature. Perhaps in a few years, we will have a better understanding of how genetics leads to structures like the eye. Evolution doesn’t have all the answers, yet.

100

[quote]I’ll bite, and bring up the classic Darwinian Godsend (haha)

How do you explain pelvises and femurs in whales?

You like the idea that eyes are too complex to be macroevolutionary, but to me its pretty easy to explain. Many single-celled organisms photosynthesize. It stands to reason that an ability to tell if they are in an area of high light is beneficial. Those that couldn’t detect light would die without feeding their chloroplasts. The fittest survived, and all of those little critters can now sense light.

So some can sense light, and those that can more efficiently sense light get more energy and are more fit to reproduce. The organisms could be eaten by other organisms, and all of the sudden the ones who can sense a blockage of light (by the predator being close) survive whereas their more blind brothers die. At that point the ones who can more efficiently detect their predator’s proximity survive so the ocular detection evolves. etc etc etc not that much of a stretch.
[/quote]

Cue 22 pages of mindless babble.

My sympathies.