Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
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.

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
[/quote]

Dude, seriously? You chose to use a blog post that cites ‘Evolution Protest Movement Pamphlet’ as its source material? No, thanks. Find anything written by a zoologist or biologist?

102

The problem with simply throwing away scientific research by stating that a structure like the eye is too complex to have evolved is that it stifles further scientific study. If “GOD” created the eye through his/her/its design, then why would we study the eye to understand it better. We could rest and be satisfied on the “GOG” answer. By extension of that thinking, “GOD” explains all of the mysteries of the phyical world.

It that what the supporters of Intelligent Design want? Are you all, by arguing the weakness in evolution theory, really arguing for the halting of scientific study? Is science then a threat to religion? Is science futile if every answer to a question ends with “GOD did it”?

103

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

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

[/quote]

First, many do have the ability to find light-rich areas. Also, we have no idea what evolutionary stage today’s single cell micro-oganisms are in.

This argument is like saying evolution must not exist because we haven’t already evolved into our “end state”

104

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
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.

Cue 22 pages of mindless babble.

My sympathies.
[/quote]

You’re going to have to clarify.

105

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Yet again, I’m not religious. I’m not defending ID. But I think evolution is equally, if not more likely to be bullshit.[/quote]

Evolution is a THEORY. If teachers these days are so retarded they can’t point this out, then that’s a different problem entirely. I seem to recall being told that evolution was a THEORY pretty early on.

Carbon dating has prove the earth has been around long before he supposed 3000 years the earth has been around.

To a lot of people, evolution is the most plausible explanation.

And RE: mutations, you should read up on adaption and exaptation.

106

[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]

Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms. Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell’s genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.

I pose this question to you - what is the point in having vestigial structures in humans? I mean, if we are the product of intelligent design, why have them?

Doesn’t seem all that intelligent to me.

107

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I pose this question to you - what is the point in having vestigial structures in humans? I mean, if we are the product of intelligent design, why have them?

Doesn’t seem all that intelligent to me.[/quote]

Not all believers of Intelligent Design think that man was poofed into existence.

108

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I consider myself a scientist, and no I’m not an atheist.

This is my scientific(ish) opinion of evolution:

There have never been any witness to the creation of any particle of matter ever.

The best science can guess at in terms of origins only amounts to something like the big band, leaving to question the origins of gases in space.

No matter how much is determined with science I’m always left with the thought that ultimately, something came from nothing.

I see it no less likely that some gases out in space spontaneously originated from nothingness, than for something more in the present state of the universe to of originated out of nothingness.[/quote]

There are some things the human mind just can’t grasp. We can’t truly conceive of nothingness. Or perpetual existence. Or how something could’ve come from nothing. Or how SOMETHING could’ve always existed in some unimaginable form.

These things will forever allude us. At a very deep level, both God and creation, and the scientific origins of our universe are not truly comprehensible. Maybe that’s how it’s supposed to be.

109

[quote]borrek wrote:
Not all believers of Intelligent Design think that man was poofed into existence.[/quote]

That’s the way a lot of them come across to me.

Obviously I was generalizing there, and I’m sorry if that caused any offense.

110

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Wait… show me some evidence for macro evolution.

oh wait.[/quote]

[i]
ONE of the lies regularly promulgated by creationist ideologues is that you cannot see evolution in action right now. For microorganisms this is obviously untrue. The evolution of new viral diseases, such as AIDS, is one example. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is another. But bacteria and viruses breed fast, so natural selection has time, within the span of a human life, to make a difference. For species with longer generations, examples are less numerous. But they do exist.

A new one has just been published, appropriately, in Evolution. It concerns dung beetles. Harald Parzer and Armin Moczek, of Indiana University, have been studying a species called Onthophagus taurus. Or, rather, it was a species 50 years ago, but it is now heading rapidly towards becoming at least four of them.

Onthophagus taurus lives naturally in southern Europe and the Middle East, but it has booted about a bit and is now found in many other places too. Mr Parzer and Dr Moczek looked at beetles from the east and west of Australia (where it was deliberately introduced to deal with the dung of non-native livestock) and North Carolina, together with an aboriginal population from Italy. Their interest was the trade-off that the males of various populations make between what they delicately describe as the beetles�?? primary and secondary sexual characteristics�??in other words, their penises and their horns. The researchers�?? hypothesis was that the bigger the horns, the smaller the penis, and vice versa.

Male Onthophagus beetles use their horns to fight over females. Lose a fight and you do not get to mate. On the other hand, if you do get to mate, having big sexual organs is likely to increase the chance that it will be your sperm, rather than another male�??s, that fertilise the female�??s eggs. Beetles, like butterflies and moths, have a four-stage life cycle of egg, larva, pupa and adult. Mr Parzer and Dr Moczek hypothesised that given the limited resources available to make an adult beetle (in other words, the flesh of the larva that made the pupa), those parts of the adult focused on reproducing will take a constant chunk. Exactly how that chunk is allocated will depend on the local conditions the adult has to face. The more fighting it is likely to have to do, the more its horns will require, and the less will be left over for its penis.
The horns of a dilemma

As they predicted, the two researchers found that the bigger a beetle�??s horns, the smaller its penis. More importantly, though, the ratio was different in each of the four populations, but similar within each population. That suggests it is being set by local natural selection in each place. Moreover, Mr Parzer and Dr Moczek also looked at ten other species of Onthophagus to see whether the trade-off applied to them too. It did. The ratio of horn to penis size was different in each species, but consistent within a species.

Given the need for male and female organs to fit together, the researchers suggest that selection of horn size might be the main method of speciation in Onthophagus. Horn size determines penis size. Penis size then dictates vagina size. That stops crossbreeding between groups and provides the reproductive isolation that groups need to evolve into species.

As evidence, they point out that the genus Onthophagus has 2,400 species�??more than any other in the animal kingdom. And their work suggests it is just about to get three more, in the shape of the east and west Australian, and North Carolinian populations, if, indeed, these groups are not species already. Since it is known when these populations were introduced, and none is more than half a century old, evolution seems to have worked its wonders well within a human lifetime. Darwin, no doubt, would have been delighted.[/i]

This is from the April 28th version of The Economist. I believe the article is available to the public, you don’t need a subscription to view it.

It is my opinion that this example not only provides definitive evidence oif macroevolution, but also of God’s sense of humor. Macroevolution proved by penis size. Oh irony.

111

[quote]Otep wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Wait… show me some evidence for macro evolution.

oh wait.

[i]
ONE of the lies regularly promulgated by creationist ideologues is that you cannot see evolution in action right now. For microorganisms this is obviously untrue. The evolution of new viral diseases, such as AIDS, is one example. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is another. But bacteria and viruses breed fast, so natural selection has time, within the span of a human life, to make a difference. For species with longer generations, examples are less numerous. But they do exist.

A new one has just been published, appropriately, in Evolution. It concerns dung beetles. Harald Parzer and Armin Moczek, of Indiana University, have been studying a species called Onthophagus taurus. Or, rather, it was a species 50 years ago, but it is now heading rapidly towards becoming at least four of them.

Onthophagus taurus lives naturally in southern Europe and the Middle East, but it has booted about a bit and is now found in many other places too. Mr Parzer and Dr Moczek looked at beetles from the east and west of Australia (where it was deliberately introduced to deal with the dung of non-native livestock) and North Carolina, together with an aboriginal population from Italy. Their interest was the trade-off that the males of various populations make between what they delicately describe as the beetles�?? primary and secondary sexual characteristics�??in other words, their penises and their horns. The researchers�?? hypothesis was that the bigger the horns, the smaller the penis, and vice versa.

Male Onthophagus beetles use their horns to fight over females. Lose a fight and you do not get to mate. On the other hand, if you do get to mate, having big sexual organs is likely to increase the chance that it will be your sperm, rather than another male�??s, that fertilise the female�??s eggs. Beetles, like butterflies and moths, have a four-stage life cycle of egg, larva, pupa and adult. Mr Parzer and Dr Moczek hypothesised that given the limited resources available to make an adult beetle (in other words, the flesh of the larva that made the pupa), those parts of the adult focused on reproducing will take a constant chunk. Exactly how that chunk is allocated will depend on the local conditions the adult has to face. The more fighting it is likely to have to do, the more its horns will require, and the less will be left over for its penis.
The horns of a dilemma

As they predicted, the two researchers found that the bigger a beetle�??s horns, the smaller its penis. More importantly, though, the ratio was different in each of the four populations, but similar within each population. That suggests it is being set by local natural selection in each place. Moreover, Mr Parzer and Dr Moczek also looked at ten other species of Onthophagus to see whether the trade-off applied to them too. It did. The ratio of horn to penis size was different in each species, but consistent within a species.

Given the need for male and female organs to fit together, the researchers suggest that selection of horn size might be the main method of speciation in Onthophagus. Horn size determines penis size. Penis size then dictates vagina size. That stops crossbreeding between groups and provides the reproductive isolation that groups need to evolve into species.

As evidence, they point out that the genus Onthophagus has 2,400 species�??more than any other in the animal kingdom. And their work suggests it is just about to get three more, in the shape of the east and west Australian, and North Carolinian populations, if, indeed, these groups are not species already. Since it is known when these populations were introduced, and none is more than half a century old, evolution seems to have worked its wonders well within a human lifetime. Darwin, no doubt, would have been delighted.[/i]

This is from the April 28th version of The Economist. I believe the article is available to the public, you don’t need a subscription to view it.

It is my opinion that this example not only provides definitive evidence oif macroevolution, but also of God’s sense of humor. Macroevolution proved by penis size. Oh irony.[/quote]

This pointed out no evidence for anything but certain preexisting traits weened out weaker ones. The beatle with a small cock was still the same species of beatle. That didn’t have anything to do with macro evolution.

112

[quote]borrek wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
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.

Cue 22 pages of mindless babble.

My sympathies.

You’re going to have to clarify.[/quote]

By agreeing to argue this point you have opened up a pandora’s box of internet stupidity that will not be sealed regardless of the clarity or veracity of your reasoning.

113

I�??d just like to point out that special relativity is observably true. At least in terms of time dilation (don�??t know if they�??ve proven length contraction) on the atomic level.

I�??d say what makes a scientist is someone who applies the scientific method; it�??s what makes science science, and not philosophy.

Yes, ID exists specifically outside of the scientific method, it is not testable.

I found it interesting when someone was asking for an experiment on ID/creationism because you cannot apply the scientific method to evolution either. I don�??t know of an experiment, other that �??wait and see�??, that can be applied to prove it true. That gets you to about step 3 on the scientific method (the hypothosis).

To me that makes it no different than ID or any other philosophic argument, even more so with things like the big bang (I�??d like to see what the control would be on that experiment). The act of observing the natural world and using only mental reasoning, without scientific experimentation, is what guys like Plato did, and it is philosophy, though not necessarily untrue…

I think it�??s funny how almost every fundamentalist generally turns out to be fundamentally wrong. Be it an ID or science person.

Many people on this thread seem to say faith in ID/God is silly, then take evolution and science theory on faith. And further refuse to admit that there are things outside of the realm of science.

Many other people on this thread fail to realize everything in the Bible isn�??t literal and choose to ignore the logic and reasoning abilities the good Lord gave us.

114

I think that equating the conjectures of scientists and priests would be a very sorry mistake to make indeed.

115

[quote]Makavali wrote:
borrek wrote:
Not all believers of Intelligent Design think that man was poofed into existence.

That’s the way a lot of them come across to me.

Obviously I was generalizing there, and I’m sorry if that caused any offense.[/quote]

I kinda think that evolution was an intelligent creation.
This whole intelligent design thing came about by bible-only evangelicals who subscribe to the literal translation of the bible. I think intelligent design a bunch of horseshit myself and I am a theist and a christian. It just sounds like people are trying to make facts fit the bible verbatim. It just doesn’t work that way. The Bible is a book of truth not a book of facts. It uses multiple methods by which to get it’s messages across. It uses stories, factual events, poetry, etc. The message is what matters not whether there was an Adam and an Eve and a garden.

I don’t need to bible or science to tell me that humans, though animals, are very, very different from any other animal to live of have ever lived. That is pretty obvious.

116

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Many people on this thread seem to say faith in ID/God is silly, then take evolution and science theory on faith. And further refuse to admit that there are things outside of the realm of science.

I think that equating the conjectures of scientists and priests would be a very sorry mistake to make indeed.

[/quote]

My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.

117

I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.

118

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.

I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.[/quote]

I realize. I never said evolution is wrong, just not provable. I also don’t know what observations and research you are talking about. It seems to me the theory of evolution is based mostly on hypothesis, all be it educated ones.

In fact, I don’t even think evolution meets the requirements of being a theory. It would have to be testable or observably true to be a theory in science, and I don’t think it’s either of those. (yet)

119

"Scientists in biology and chemistry often do this though. It’s why I’m a math and physics guy. "

"But mostly I just don’t like chemistry, to the point I consider it pseudo-science. "

As an individual who solves differential equations on a daily basis to model chemical interactions in nature and researches modeling radio isotope interaction with dipole compounds. I am simply aghast.

120

[quote]usawa wrote:
"Scientists in biology and chemistry often do this though. It’s why I’m a math and physics guy. "

"But mostly I just don’t like chemistry, to the point I consider it pseudo-science. "

As an individual who solves differential equations on a daily basis to model chemical interactions in nature and researches modeling radio isotope interaction with dipole compounds. I am simply aghast.

[/quote]

Hah!

I always swore I would never take theoretical physics seriously until they found a frictionless surface. With the discovery of super-fluids, they came close enough to give them credit.

I do have to admit that chemistry is much more exact at an atomic scale (I�??m assuming you are modeling at a micro level). However, chemistry at an atomic scale is really theoretical physics isn�??t it?