Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
mcdugga wrote: I think the problem occurs when those who take an agnostic/atheisic position believe they are then obligated to live by a humanistic philosophy and the moral relativism that accompanies it. Moral relativism affects not only individuals, but societies and, usually, not for the better. I think this is why Christians fear the universal acceptance of abiogenes and evolution, not the useless hair-splitting of evolution vs. 6-day creation.

I think you give most Christians too much credit. The useless hair-splitting is ALL they care about. They don’t care about or even think about things like moral relativism, which I don’t believe is the problem you think its is. Japan is the least religious country in the world, and they have very low crime rates. Certainly lower than the US, which is about the most religious country in the world. In fact, looking through history, I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that religion inspires morality.

I just want to point out one flaw in your comment. If you are arguing about morality, it would not be a good idea to bring up a crime rate. If someone is saying that a place is an immoral place, then crime there would be relative to the morality of the given society.

In other words; If society does not consider it immoral to murder someone, they would not have a law prohibiting it. So when people are murdered, there would be no spike in “crime rates”.

That is an extreme example, but food for thought nonetheless.

But- Back on topic.[/quote]

While I see what you’re saying, the general laws in most modern industrial nations are so similar that I think it’s a valid comparison.

162

I laugh my ass off when people say that evolution is just a theory, because they clearly have no idea what a scientific theory is.

163

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
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.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

[/quote]

If you really need top believe that, please continue to do that.

Once you are ready to open your mind:

164

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
In the end, I still have a problem with species divergence in the evolutionary theory. I don’t see an offspring having a different number of chromosomes and still being able to reproduce.

I mean you are talking about small steps, but at one point there would have to, for example, be an organism with 23 chromosomes that the next generation had say 24 (a change that would make an offspring unable to breed with it’s population, these are the kind of leaps the fossil record shows)

If it was some haphazard one of a kind mutation, the one and only 24 chromosome organism wouldn’t be able to breed.

There would have to be a co-mutation of a large portion of a generation of a species for this to make any since to me in terms of breed-ability and sustainability.

Unless for every significant change like that there would have to be an Adam and Eve type pair, but even that requires “random” mutation of multiple animals at the same time and place with the same mutation.

This is one place where ID makes more sense to me. The belief that these kind of changes occur with some sort of guidance. I’m not saying that it’s fact, but there are some reasons behind it.

The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.[/quote]

Here is a good breakdown of how chromosome numbers change
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php

I am interested to hear your opinion on the fused chromosome that humans possess and it’s relationship to two ape chromosomes.

I can’t really imagine how a proponent of ID could address that particular issue in a manner that isn’t ridiculous.

165

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.

That is a really good line right there.[/quote]

LOL, I liked everything in his post except for that particular line.

166

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–[/quote]

You could claim that if you wanted, but there isn’t any evidence to back it up as a legitimate theory.

167

[quote]orion wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
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.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

If you really need top believe that, please continue to do that.

Once you are ready to open your mind:

[/quote]

Nice link.

I just found a paragraph by a member of the Flat Earth Society that is so purely awesome I had to share.

"If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be – if we could imagine the thing, to be peopled all around-‘antipodes:’ ‘people who,’ says the dictionary, ‘living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, having their fee [sic] opposite to ours’ - people who are HANGING DOWN, HEAD DOWNWARDS while we are standing head up?

But since the theory allows to travel to those parts of the earth where the people are said to hand head downward, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards, and our friends whom we have left behind us to be heads downwards, it follows that the WHOLE THING IS A MYTH - A DREAM - A DELUSION - and a snare, and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate this popular theory, it is plain proof that the Earth is Not A Globe."

I suspect that the society is just a hoax, but I prefer to believe they are legit.

Note - I am not making a comparison to creationists. I just found the concept amusing and thought I would share.

168

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–

You could claim that if you wanted, but there isn’t any evidence to back it up as a legitimate theory.

[/quote]

Well, if he wanted to compare the two, he would know that the universe created in the big bang was very different from ours and then evolved into ours.

So, when matter somehow managed to replicate itself in certain patterns, which is not that unusual when you look at all sorts of crystals and such formations, it was only a matter of time before butterflies evolved.

The question of abiogenesis, meaning life from non life is not part of the theory of evolution though.

169

[quote]Makavali wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
exactly, I don’t want half baked ideas taught in school. Especially when we gloss over things like genetics, cells and their parts, and etc. It is moronic to even devote a week to learning evolution, when there is factual information out there that could be taught in it’s place.

It’s hardly half-baked. You being a weekend warrior on macro evolution hardly qualifies you to shit all over what is still a theory. What set ID apart is that it is a blatant attempt to secure another foothold in a society that is fast losing that need for fairy tales.[/quote]

Did I even say I wanted ID taught instead of evolution taught in schools? I just do not want more bullshit taught in schools. I have never, ever, ever found a good arguement for evolution, and I’m not even religeous. I’m not going to cling to any half baked idea, evolution or literal genesis, so stop trying to place me into that group.

170

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
In the end, I still have a problem with species divergence in the evolutionary theory. I don’t see an offspring having a different number of chromosomes and still being able to reproduce.

I mean you are talking about small steps, but at one point there would have to, for example, be an organism with 23 chromosomes that the next generation had say 24 (a change that would make an offspring unable to breed with it’s population, these are the kind of leaps the fossil record shows)

If it was some haphazard one of a kind mutation, the one and only 24 chromosome organism wouldn’t be able to breed.

There would have to be a co-mutation of a large portion of a generation of a species for this to make any since to me in terms of breed-ability and sustainability.

Unless for every significant change like that there would have to be an Adam and Eve type pair, but even that requires “random” mutation of multiple animals at the same time and place with the same mutation.

This is one place where ID makes more sense to me. The belief that these kind of changes occur with some sort of guidance. I’m not saying that it’s fact, but there are some reasons behind it.

The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.

Here is a good breakdown of how chromosome numbers change
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php

I am interested to hear your opinion on the fused chromosome that humans possess and it’s relationship to two ape chromosomes.

I can’t really imagine how a proponent of ID could address that particular issue in a manner that isn’t ridiculous.

[/quote]
That is an interesting point that things don’t have to be advantageous to propagate and can even be disadvantageous. But again that is not the evolution my biology teacher taught me.

171

[quote]Makavali wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
– Nother Honest question alert–

Could we perhaps relate the big bang theory where I believe something came out of nothingness by dividing by zero (or some such thing) and that as long as as much nothing is created as something, it is feasible?

Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–

Who said the universe came out of nothing? We don’t know WHAT came before the Big Bang. We don’t even understand the fundamental principles of time! Only recently have we realized that time isn’t a straight line, but rather a sphere. No beginning, no end, and infinite possibilities.[/quote]

Time is an imaginary concept, what is this sphere discovery you speak of?

172

[quote]Makavali wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Yes, of course it is a theory. But it is delivered as a “theory- wink wink; the other guy’s are a little slow.”

Well what did you expect? IDer’s poo poo everything that is remotely different to their interpretation of events so much that it’s not funny. I expect evolution will go some major change in our lifetime, and that only goes to show that science is always changing.

IDer’s base their concepts off a book that was written back when we didn’t know ANYTHING. We thought the earth was flat for God’s sake!

But now we have explanations, we know the earth isn’t flat. A lot of that stuff is REDUNDANT.

Actually, the earth is provably flat with physics.

173

[quote]valiance. wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
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.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

You’ll need to do a better comparison then that.

You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.

It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.

But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.[/quote]

No natural selection is the far more credible notion here.

If you want to get picky, ID with natural selection makes the most sense.

Bottom line we weren’t here, from pragmatic viewpoint any idea of how we got here is just a theory not a truth. I would say take evolution out of curriculum that is in the same line with credible bio, biochem, chem.

Natural selection is the model that fits modern biology not evolution. Has anyone ever seen a new species formed. If not you have just as much support for your ideas as a christian, a muslim, a mormon.

We should still teach these theories yes, but it should be a separate course, there are some usable concept algorithms.

174

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
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.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

You’ll need to do a better comparison then that.

You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.

It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.

But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.

No natural selection is the far more credible notion here.

If you want to get picky, ID with natural selection makes the most sense.

Bottom line we weren’t here, from pragmatic viewpoint any idea of how we got here is just a theory not a truth. I would say take evolution out of curriculum that is in the same line with credible bio, biochem, chem.

Natural selection is the model that fits modern biology not evolution. Has anyone ever seen a new species formed. If not you have just as much support for your ideas as a christian, a muslim, a mormon.

We should still teach these theories yes, but it should be a separate course, there are some usable concept algorithms. [/quote]

Where all you´re questions are answered.

175

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–[/quote]

Because the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?

176

And by the way:

Claim CB910:
No new species have been observed.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.). The Institute for Creation Research
Response:

  1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

    * A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

  A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

177

[quote]ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–

Because the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?
[/quote]

To screw with scientists?

178

[quote]orion wrote:
And by the way:

Claim CB910:
No new species have been observed.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.). The Institute for Creation Research
Response:

  1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

    * A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

  A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html[/quote]

I’ll have to read into more of some of these. However, I think it’s going to be hard to prove “where no such species existed” hundreds or thousands of years ago.

I can see just as easily many of these cases being environmental changes that lead to the population explosion of an existing formerly unknown species. That or the accidental introduction of an outside species into a new environment in which they thrive.

Regardless, none of the evolution arguments argue against ID. They really only differ in motivating force which is entirely unprovable or testable.

179

[quote]ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?

– Honest question alert end–

Because the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?
[/quote]

ball and socket joint very uncommon.

180

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
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.

The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.

You’ll need to do a better comparison then that.

You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.

It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.

But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.

Has anyone ever seen a new species formed. If not you have just as much support for your ideas as a christian, a muslim, a mormon. [/quote]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to you when you reference natural selection separately from evolution.

But in answer to your question, yes we have seen new species form.

It’s clear you’ve only done the most superficial reading of this topic. If you’re really curious about how life on Earth got to its current level of biodiversity I urge you to look more deeply at the evidence. Maybe you don’t want to do more research and that’s fine, but you look silly coming in here and asking if anyone has seen new species form. Everyone is entitled to his opinion but when you clearly know little about the topic maybe it would behoove you to learn some more before you give us your opinions as if they’re facts.

I hate to be condescending–and I know right now I am–and I apologize. But you can’t come in here and say ID is right and evolution is wrong when you don’t have the facts straight. You appear to have no idea of the absolutely overwhelming support for the fact of evolution.