Intelligent design to be taught in Queensland schools

[Agonaces of Susa]

Evolution is not a compeletly random process

It's not? Is something directing evolution?

so maths do not factor into it

That's obvious. The one thing evolutionary biologists are scared of most is math.

as a means to make it improbable.

Let's be honest: there is no possible evidence that would cause you to think evolution is improbable.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I don't understand your example. Many modern evolutionists have no working knowledge of fire.

I will explain this if you indicated you honestly did not understand it. Untill that im going to assume it was just a bad joke.

How come vaccines worked for 63 years without evolutionary theory?

Wait, I may have actually totally confused this up with something else.
I will get back to you on this later when i have the time.

People are terrified of evolution because it's indoctrination.

Being told what that believe is indoctrination. Being taught what and how something works is education. You will notice the bible does the former, the science textbooks do the later.

In my view, Directed Panspermia is the opposite of abiogenesis.

They are different answers to the same question. they can be opposite there is no problem with that at all. the point is they both attempt to answer the same question

Q1:"How did life begin on earth"
A1: "Directed Panspermia"
A2: "Abiogenesis"
A3: "insert further hypothesis here"

After that there is the question
Q2:"how did the early life on earth turn into the diversity of life we see to day"
A1: "The theory of evolution"

Note how the answers of Q1 cannot be used to answer Q2 and visaversa.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

It's not? Is something directing evolution?

Yes there is. That something is natural selection.
Evolution consists of two parts.
1. Random mutation
2. Natural selection
I assume you either know what they are or dont care so wont explain unless you actually want me to.

The point is that because they leave out 2. they are only trying to calculate how improbably it would be if all the random mutations that toke place to get to modern life where to stack up just right by pure chance. Which is false.

That's obvious. The one thing evolutionary biologists are scared of most is math.

Nonsense. Though I did chuckle, good one.

Let's be honest: there is no possible evidence that would cause you to think evolution is improbable.

Suppose it where demonstrated that natural selection is falsified and everything here happend by random chance. Then i might have to say "wait a moment"

But as i just explained. It is not random and there for not improbable.

You could argue Abiogenesis to be improbable perhaps. Though that has no baring on the theory of evolution.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Being told what that believe is indoctrination. Being taught what and how something works is education. You will notice the bible does the former, the science textbooks do the later.

I notice the exact opposite.

Like everyone else in America, I was indoctrinated at a very young age by science textbooks to believe in evolution without anyone ever showing me in the laboratory how it works, or, rather more precisely, how it doesn't work.

No one in school ever educated me about the Bible and how it works.

Thus indoctrination.

They are different answers to the same question.

I agree that Darwinism (abiogenesis) and Intelligent Design (directed panspermia) are different answers to the same question.

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

 

[Blayz]

That's obvious. The one thing evolutionary biologists are scared of most is math.

Classic stuff. Apparently IoQ doesn't event remember his own posts, let alone anything else.

Quick refresher from a few days ago. I posted this:

...and then make some decision on some CNV/LOH algorithms...actually AoS, given your expertise and track record in the matter, perhaps you could lend me your expert opinion? Do you think the segmentation granularity offered by PICNIC is worth the extra manually intensive analysis versus something more automated but that generates a coarser map, such as BIRDSEED?

Which in brief is a math intensive question around one of the fundamentals of evolutionary theory, the concept of gene duplication.

And what did I get in reply? What math savvy no-fear-there-nosireebob response did I get??

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." -- Proverbs 25:2

Utter, utter utter hypocrisy and fail, IoQ. How do you live with yourself?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Yes there is. That something is natural selection.

What is directing natural selection?

What caused natural selection to exist?

 

[Taq]

Of course they would: they are a herd of chattel who engage in lemminglike groupthink.

Cattle do not do biological research. Go to Pubmed. Do a search for "evolution". Just in this database alone are 260,000+ original research papers that involve evolution. How many original research papers in peer review journals use ID or creationism? Zero, by last count. ID is useless as a scientific theory. It is useless as a tool for doing science. The theory of evolution is immensely useful for analyzing sequence data, just as one example.

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008


It's called Intelligent Design.

"All things were mixed up together, then Mind came and arranged them all in distinct order." -- Anaxagoras, philosopher, 5th century B.C.

"Then I heard someone who had a book of Anaxagoras, as he said, out of which he read that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was quite delighted at the notion of this, which appeared admirable, and I said to myself; If mind is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in the best place ...." -- Plato, philosopher, Phaedo, 360 B.C.

"... nor again could it be right to entrust so great a matter [nature] to spontaneity and chance. When one man said, then, that reason was present -- as in animals, so throughout nature -- as the cause of order and of all arrangement, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly adopted these views, but Hermotimus of Clazomenae is credited with expressing them earlier." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I, 350 B.C.

"And the existence of male and female, and the desire of each for conjunction, and the power of using the parts which are constructed, do not even these declare the workman? Who made these things or devised them? 'No one,' you say. Oh, amazing shamelessness and stupidity!" -- Epictetus, philosopher, Discourses, Book I, 1st century

Still not seeing any original scientific research.

Crick, F.H.C., and Orgel, L.E., edited because I can't have url's in my posts yet

Please show how ID was used in this research.

You're right: it's pretty hard to censor something that has already been suppressed.

There is no ID science to supress.

See the peer-reviewed science you've been deliberately kept unaware of posted above.

I thought it was suppressed?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

What is directing natural selection?

What caused natural selection to exist?

There is no need to direct natural selection. Its a simple discription of a process. Creatures less suited to survival die young and leave less offspring then creatures more suited to survival. This is basic logic.

It is caused by there being two creatures one being less good at surviving then the other. So it survives less.

I have to ask though, Did you really want a serious answer?

 

[Taq]

What is directing natural selection?

The fact that there are more organisms than there is food. There has to be losers, and the loser tend to be the least fit.

 

[Taq]

Like everyone else in America, I was indoctrinated at a very young age by science textbooks to believe in evolution without anyone ever showing me in the laboratory how it works, or, rather more precisely, how it doesn't work.

Are you banned from using google? You can start by searching for "Sifter bayesian phylogenomics". The first hit should be a paper on the use of the theory of evolution to predict protein function. In fact, the theory works so well that they are able to predict protein function with 96% accuracy.

Evolution is not a belief. It is a very useful tool used by biologists.

No one in school ever educated me about the Bible and how it works.

Thus indoctrination.

Can you please tell me why useful scientific theories should be balanced with religious beliefs?

I agree that Darwinism (abiogenesis) and Intelligent Design (directed panspermia) are different answers to the same question.

Evolution and abiogenesis are different theories, first off. Secondly, they are different answers. Evolution is a scientific explanation while ID is a religiously based and scientifically devoid explanation.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

ID is useless as a scientific theory. It is useless as a tool for doing science. The theory of evolution is immensely useful for analyzing sequence data, just as one example.

These are some of the most absurd and deluded sentences I have ever read in my life.

Egnor, M., Why Would I Want My Doctor to Have Studied Evolution?, Mar 2007

Still not seeing any original scientific research.

I predict you will see it when you believe it.

Crick, F.H.C., and Orgel, L.E., Directed Panspermia, Icarus, Volume 19, Pages 341-346, 1973

Axe, D.D., Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds, Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 341, Issue 5, Pages 1295-1315, Aug 2004

Behe, M.J., and Snoke, D.W., Simulating Evolution By Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues, Protein Science, Volume 13, Number 10, Pages 2651-2664, Oct 2004

Lönnig, W-E., Dynamic Genomes Morphological Stasis and the Origin of Irreducible Complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pages 101-119, 2005

Meyer, S.C., The Origin Of Biological Information And The Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Volume 117, Number 2, Pages 213-239, May 2007

Marks, R.J., and Dembski, W.A., Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, Systems Man and Cybernetics: Part A Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions, Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1051-1061, Sep 2009

Please show how ID was used in this research.

Directed Panspermia is Intelligent Design.

"... Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet." -- Francis H.C. Crick, molecular biologist, and Leslie E. Orgel, biologist, 1972

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008

 

[Taq]

These are some of the most absurd and deluded sentences I have ever read in my life.

Then show me a scientist who has used ID to predict protein function using sequence data. I can show it for evolution.

I predict you will see it when you believe it.

I predict you will keep making empty assertions.

Directed Panspermia is Intelligent Design.

And they conclude that there is no evidence for it. Says so right in the abstract. There is no original research in the paper. Do you know what original research is? It's where you do actual lab work to test a hypothesis. There is none of that in there.

 

[Taq]

Please pick one of the supposed ID papers and show us how ID was applied in the research.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Then show me a scientist who has used ID to predict protein function using sequence data. I can show it for evolution.

I refer you to the links you are deliberately ignoring posted above.

I predict you will keep making empty assertions.

2+2=4.

You have a bad track record with predictions.

And they conclude that there is no evidence for it. Says so right in the abstract.

I think history and archaeology are evidence.

"When the gods instead of man
Did the work, bore the loads,
the gods' load was too great,
The work too hard, the trouble too much.
The great Annunaki made the Igigi."
-- The Atrahasis Epic, 18th century B.C.

"Far sighted Enki and and wise Mami
Went into the room of fate.
The womb-goddesses were assembled.
He trod the clay in her presence;
She kept reciting an incantation
For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it.
When she had finished her incantation,
She pinched off fourteen pieces (of clay)
(And set) seven pieces on the right,
Seven on the left. ...
Seven created males.
Seven created females."
-- The Atrahasis Epic, 18th century B.C.

There is no original research in the paper. Do you know what original research is? It's where you do actual lab work to test a hypothesis. There is none of that in there.

In that case Darwinism and evolution are not original research since Darwin, a theologian by training, did no actual lab work to test his hypothesis. Abiogensis is not original research since it has never been observed in the lab. And no new animals have been observed to spontaneously evolve in the lab or anywhere else on Earth.

 

[Taq]

I refer you to the links you are deliberately ignoring posted above.

Which one? Where in that paper can I find the information I am interested in?

2+2=4.

You have a bad track record with predictions.

Again, no original research based on ID just as I predicted.

I think history and archaeology are evidence.

Evidence of what? Directed panspermia?

In that case Darwinism and evolution are not original research since Darwin, a theologian by training, did no actual lab work to test his hypothesis.

False. It contained much of his own field work that he collected during his travels on the Beagle. This includes his observations of the finches of the Galapagos and island endemism. Besides, he wrote a non-peer reviewed book.

I have listed one paper that uses the theory of evolution directly to predict protein function (the SIFTER algorithm). Here is a sample from the paper:

"Phylogenomics applies knowledge about how molecular
function evolves to improve function prediction. Specifically,phylogenomics is based on the assertion that protein function evolves in parallel with sequence [32], implying that a phylogeny based on protein sequences accurately represents how molecular function evolved for that particular set of proteins. Additionally, molecular function tends to evolve more rapidly after duplication than after speciation because there are fewer mutational constraints; thus, mutations that alter function may more easily fixate in one of the copies [33–35]. These observations give rise to the phylogenomics method, which involves building a phylogenetic tree from homologous protein sequences, marking the location of
duplication events, and propagating known functions within each clade descendant from a duplication event. This produces a set of function predictions supported by the evolutionary principles outlined above."

So how does one use ID to do the same thing?

Abiogensis is not original research since it has never been observed in the lab. And no new animals have been observed to evolve in the lab or anywhere else on Earth.

Work on the RNA World Hypothesis does include work done in the lab. Tons of it. You are wrong again.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Which one? Where in that paper can I find the information I am interested in?

The one that deals with proteins.

Again, no original research based on ID just as I predicted.

Again, you don't see it because you don't believe it. Just as I predicted.

Evidence of what? Directed panspermia?

Well they certainly aren't evidence of evolution.

False. It contained much of his own field work that he collected during his travels on the Beagle.

What laboratory experiment did Darwin perform aboard the Beagle involving abiogenesis and spontaneous evolution?

This includes his observations of the finches of the Galapagos and island endemism.

Darwin never caused finches to spontaneously evolve into another animal in the laboratory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QlyKP6cUhQ

Besides, he wrote a non-peer reviewed book.

Exactly. Darwinism isn't even peer reviewed. Intelligent Design Theory on the other hand is peer reviewed.

I have listed one paper that uses the theory of evolution directly to predict protein function (the SIFTER algorithm). Here is a sample from the paper:

"Phylogenomics applies knowledge about how molecular
function evolves to improve function prediction. Specifically,phylogenomics is based on the assertion that protein function evolves in parallel with sequence [32], implying that a phylogeny based on protein sequences accurately represents how molecular function evolved for that particular set of proteins. Additionally, molecular function tends to evolve more rapidly after duplication than after speciation because there are fewer mutational constraints; thus, mutations that alter function may more easily fixate in one of the copies [33–35]. These observations give rise to the phylogenomics method, which involves building a phylogenetic tree from homologous protein sequences, marking the location of
duplication events, and propagating known functions within each clade descendant from a duplication event. This produces a set of function predictions supported by the evolutionary principles outlined above."

None of which proves or even supports evolution.

So how does one use ID to do the same thing?

ID shows the exact opposite.

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

Work on the RNA World Hypothesis does include work done in the lab. Tons of it. You are wrong again.

What did you observe RNA to evolve into? A flying velociraptor?

 

[Taq]

The one that deals with proteins.

What about it? How do they use ID in that paper? Or did you just get this list of papers from a creationist website and assumed they used ID? Are you saying that you have been indoctrinated into ID?

Again, you don't see it because you don't believe it. Just as I predicted.

You believe and YOU CAN'T SEE IT. If you saw it you could describe it for me.

Well they certainly aren't evidence of evolution.

I don't think anyone claimed that pottery shards were evidence of evolution. How do ancient human artifacts evidence the intelligent design of all life on Earth? Care to explain?

What laboratory experiment did Darwin perform aboard the Beagle involving abiogenesis and spontaneous evolution?

Evolution does not include abiogenesis, so I fail to see why you keep mentioning it.

His field work included cataloging the endemic species on the Galapagos island, including finches and tortoises. Island endemism is one evidences that Darwin put forth in support of his theory. He showed how the specialized species on each island were modified versions of the fossil species on each island, and that species such as finches had adapted to fill niches that were filled by much different creatures in Europe. That was his original research.

Darwin never caused finches to spontaneously evolve into another animal in the laboratory.

So you require scientists to have a time machine? Really?

Exactly. Darwinism isn't even peer reviewed. Intelligent Design Theory on the other hand is peer reviewed.

But the 260,000+ papers at pubmed are.

None of which proves or even supports evolution.

It supports my claim that the theory of evolution is a very useful tool in biological research. So how is ID used in biological research? How is ID used to predict protein function?

ID shows the exact opposite.

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

The exact opposite of what?

All you have highlighted is the false dichotomy that ID relies upon. If evolution is wrong then evolution is wrong. THAT'S IT. Proving one theory wrong does not prove another right. A theory must stand on its own research, and ID has none. What you have shown is that ID is an empty theory that is little more than anti-evolution.

How did the designer make the flagellum? Not evolution.

How did the designer make the blood clotting cascade? Not evolution.

Is this how you think science is done?

What did you observe RNA to evolve into? A flying velociraptor?

Into polymerases capable of making new pieces of RNA, actually.

"Our current understanding of biology suggests that early life relied predominantly on RNA for catalysis and replication. Here, we report the isolation of an RNA polymerase ribozyme called B6.61 that exhibits superior extension and fidelity relative to its progenitor, the Round-18 polymerase. The B6.61 polymerase was selected from a mutagenized pool containing approximately 9 x 10(14) sequence variants through the use of a novel large-scale in vitro compartmentalization system. B6.61 polymerized all tested primer-template (PT) complexes faster than the Round-18 variant. For one PT, B6.61 exhibited dramatically faster elongation past one full helical turn and incorporated at least 20 nucleotides of sequence, setting a new extension record for an RNA polymerase ribozyme. The increased efficiency of the B6.61 construct was related to improvements in fidelity, with the new variant incorporating less incorrect wobble base pairs than its parent. This new polymerase demonstrates the feasibility of evolving an artificial RNA replicase ribozyme in the foreseeable future."

1: Zaher HS, Unrau PJ. Selection of an improved RNA polymerase ribozyme with superior extension and fidelity. RNA. 2007 Jul;13(7):1017-26.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What about it?

I'm guessing you'll never know.

How do they use ID in that paper?

The answer would require you to actually read the paper.

How do ancient human artifacts evidence the intelligent design of all life on Earth? Care to explain?

Well you don't consider physical archaeological evidence and history to be evidence because you believe history is mythological.

However, if you would like to know why I consider history to be evidence of Intelligent Design, I would say for the same reason I consider Mein Kampf to be evidence of the Holocaust.

Evolution does not include abiogenesis, so I fail to see why you keep mentioning it.

When people say evolution what they really mean is abiogenesis. What they don't mean is that God created evolution.

His field work included cataloging the endemic species on the Galapagos island, including finches and tortoises. Island endemism is one evidences that Darwin put forth in support of his theory. He showed how the specialized species on each island were modified versions of the fossil species on each island, and that species such as finches had adapted to fill niches that were filled by much different creatures in Europe. That was his original research.

No laboratory experiments were performed on finches and turtles that support evolution. Therefore not original research by your definition.

So you require scientists to have a time machine? Really?

I don't require it. They require it in order to support their hypotheses. How else did Hindus, Chinese, Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Incas, and Mexicans travel through time to conspire with the Hebrews concerning the stories of the creation and deluge?

But the 260,000+ papers at pubmed are.

"If 50 million people believe a fallacy it is still a fallacy." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1970

It supports my claim that the theory of evolution is a very useful tool in biological research.

Evolution is utterly useless in science.

Egnor, M., Why Would I Want My Doctor to Have Studied Evolution?, Mar 2007

So how is ID used in biological research?

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008

Also see here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7477163/

How is ID used to predict protein function?

I answered this already.

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

The exact opposite of what?

The opposite of evolution.

All you have highlighted is the false dichotomy that ID relies upon. If evolution is wrong then evolution is wrong. THAT'S IT.

Proving one theory wrong does not prove another right. A theory must stand on its own research, and ID has none. What you have shown is that ID is an empty theory that is little more than anti-evolution.

So regardless of whether or not creationism is right or wrong, evolution is still wrong?

How did the designer make the flagellum? Not evolution.

I agree.

How did the designer make the blood clotting cascade? Not evolution.

I agree.

 

[laconicstudent]

Taq, you really shouldn't let Agonaces get to you.... Trust me, we've all tried what you are doing before.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Taq,

One more question: what scientific experiments have you performed in the laboratory to test the validity of Intelligent Design?