Intelligent Design / Evolution

[idscience]

Before any discussion can take place, evolution has to be defined.

It does not deal with origins of life or the universe for which there are no empirical evidence on either side.
Evolution is now defined as change over time. It has become a blanket term that covers what was called micro-evolution (changes over short term with species) and macro-evolution (changes above the level of species)
There is no argument for the former, changes and variations due to mutations and natural selection do occur.

The only place of contention is how the variety of living things arose. Evolution says by extreemly long periods of time (millions or billions) of years. The evolutionist holds that the minor changes observed to day can account for the vast body plan changes over millions of years. Evolution holds that all living things are descendant from one common anscestory.

Design theory holds that some features in living things are best explained by an intelligent agent and not a blind, undirected process of random mutation acted on by natural selection. Intelligent Design is not Creationism, in that it does not use the biblical text as the bases for scietific discover. ID infers design from experimental evidence, obervation, and testing.

EDITED UPDATE:
The children have hi-jacked the thread by posting one liner replies unrelated to the thread.
If you have ever had any questions about evolution being true or Intelligent Design, this thread will give you some real answers to chew on.​

Below are the post numbers of some of the more detailed information regarding the subject of this thread​

CENSORSHIP OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN​

Censored Science, 70, 151,177,184, 6,

EVIDENCE FOR INFERENCE TO INTELLIGENCE AND DESIGN​

Fine tuning of the universe for life, 70

Unlocking the Mystery of Life, 70,
Molecular Machines, 609,
The Immune System, 558,
DNA and Specified information, 32, 42,116,126,467, 559,
Computer Science, 559,
Bacterial Flagellum (Irreducible Complexity) 34,257,574, 796
Intelligent design, 34,227,369,418,
Peer Review Papers, 257,
Predictions, 118,​

Evolution is a Fact?, 759​

Falure of Support for Evolution
Immune System Step by Step? No, 796​

Transitional Whales, 261,295,296

29 evidences for macro-evolution, 508,
Darwin's tree collapsing, 64, 65,101,321,462,
Speciation, 65,467,
List of problems, 171,428,
Overwhelming Evidence Myth, 360,
Anti-biotic resistance, 321,679
Evolution and Medicine Myth, 96,97
Consensus Myth, 97
Abiogenesis, 15
Drug Resistance not due to evolution, 680
The Peppered Myth, 775
Vestigial Organs, 900​

Ooops! Never Mind.​

IDA, Human Missing link, 695,
ARDI, Human Missing link, 710,
Antibiotic Resistance, 679​

MORE INFORMATION​

ID/Evolution blog for up to date commentary on the controversy
IDScience.ca​

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Are you familiar with the "Wedge Document?"

 

[idscience]

Yes I am. Evolution has one of those too. Have you head of "FRAMING"?

The motives of ID proponents do not detract from their peer reviewed studies or the evidence they base their theory on. Of course a Christian would want some integrity put back into the education system. Design is a credible theory, and that document was a plan to get the infomation main stream.
All to often the opponents of ID will side step the meat of the theory and move onto personal attacks, charactor assination and censorship. Motives and fear mongering, for example, Teaching even the weaknesses of evolution to students will endanger lives. This was a paper by an evolutionist who tried to lobby against a proposal to bring some balance back into the school system. To educate instead of indoctrinate. Evolution has weak points too. Making them known to students will not destry science as we know it or endanger lives. The notion is absurd.

 

[CabVet]

ID is not a scientific theory. "Nothing that we know could have done this, so there must be an intelligent designer behind it" is not a scientific theory.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Yes I am. Evolution has one of those too. Have you head of "FRAMING"?

The motives of ID proponents do not detract from their peer reviewed studies or the evidence they base their theory on. Of course a Christian would want some integrity put back into the education system. Design is a credible theory, and that document was a plan to get the infomation main stream.
All to often the opponents of ID will side step the meat of the theory and move onto personal attacks, charactor assination and censorship. Motives and fear mongering, for example, Teaching even the weaknesses of evolution to students will endanger lives. This was a paper by an evolutionist who tried to lobby against a proposal to bring some balance back into the school system. To educate instead of indoctrinate. Evolution has weak points too. Making them known to students will not destry science as we know it or endanger lives. The notion is absurd.

That's just it, there is no meat in ID.

There is absolutely nothing to it. ID/cdesignproponentsists do not do research, they just piggyback on those who do, and then laughably distort findings to fit their agenda. ID has no predictive powers, is not falsifiable and serves no other purpose but to "wedge" religion into schools. It's underhanded and a clear violation of church and state.

If you'd like to discuss the incompetency of this designer, I'd be more than happy.

 

[idscience]

Again with wild accusations with no substantiated sources. As stated in the intro post, I will not be responding to personal disbelief in ID. Your belief is yours and that is fine. This thread will deal with science. Conspiracy theories is another thread.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Again with wild accusations with no substantiated sources. As stated in the intro post, I will not be responding to personal disbelief in ID. Your belief is yours and that is fine. This thread will deal with science. Conspiracy theories is another thread.

I'm not sure if you're being serious now. Are you that unaware of the ID/cdesign proponentsists movement?

You really should do your homework.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phillip E. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CaliforniaSun]

double post

 

[idscience]

I'm not sure if you're being serious now. Are you that unaware of the ID/cdesign proponentsists movement?

You really should do your homework.

Dover, was a district court decision that has little impact on ID. If you remember Scopes was convicted too but I don't here many evolutions say it is invalid because of it. Judges make poor decisions all the time and there is plenty of comment on how poorly the case was handled

The next three links have nothing to do with the science, they are political positions

Hovind, is not an ID proponent and a strawman argument

Philip Johnson is a pioneer in showing the problems with evolution.

Dean Kenyon is an eminent professor who's book on chemical evolution was used as corriculum until he realized chemical evolution was untenable. It remains that to this day.

I would really recommend you not use wikipedia as your source information. They are notorious for inactuate postings and political bias. Something a little more scholarly would carry more weight.

Missing from your critique is any actual critique of what ID holds to.

DNA digital code language, along with the multi layers of regulatory networks all interacting and overlapping.
Specified complexity of information for which evolution has no answers
Irreducibly complex systems and structures that need multiple systems and components all working at the same time to be functional. Blind undriceted processes are unable to build these.

I could go on but I cannot post sources yet.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

DNA digital code language, along with the multi layers of regulatory networks all interacting and overlapping.
Specified complexity of information for which evolution has no answers
Irreducibly complex systems and structures that need multiple systems and components all working at the same time to be functional. Blind undriceted processes are unable to build these.

I could go on but I cannot post sources yet.

I see a lot of words there, but you really didn't say anything. You can take another run at it if you like, but as I said, ID = oh look, real hard science stuff... goddidit.

You might want to define "complexity" if you're going to use it.

 

[idscience]

There are some very good book to read for those who are interested in the weaknesses of evolution and the validity of intelligent design.

"THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION" by Michael Behe

Michael J. Behe launched the intelligent design movement with his first book, Darwin's Black Box, by demonstrating that Darwinism could not account for the complexity of biochemistry. Now he takes a giant leap forward. In The Edge of Evolution, Behe uses astounding new findings from the genetics revolution to show that Darwinism is nowhere near as powerful as most people believe. Genetic analysis of malaria, E. coli, and the HIV virus over tens of thousands of generations, not to mention analysis of the entire history of the genetic struggle between them and "us" (humans), make it possible for the first time to determine the precise rates, and likelihood, of random mutations of varying kinds. We now know, as never before, what Darwinism can and cannot accomplish.

"DARWIN'S BLACK BOX" by Michael Behe
"SIGNATURE IN THE CELL" by Steven C. Meyer
"ICONS OF EVOLUTION" by Jonathan Wells
"DARWIN ON TRIAL" by Philip E. Johnson

These are excellent books authored by scientists who are in the field of biology and one lawyer who is an expert at pulling apart faulty arguements. They go into great depths, on why evolutionary processes cannot work and have not worked, even after decades of experimentation.

 

[idscience]

When Francis Crick co-discovered the structure of DNA back in the 50s he changed how we look at life. DNA is called the language of life. So much information is encoded in our DNA that if all of it from your 100 trillion cells were laied end to end, they would reach the sun and back 600 times.

Our human genome is made up of a four letter code (A,C.G.T.)There is 1.8 m of DNA in every cell that is only 0.0001 cm wide. This code is responsible for building the entire human body and is made up of about 3 billion base pairs. There is enough information stored in DNA to fill 200 five hundred page telephone books.

 

[idscience]

The astonishing discovery about DNA was that it is a digital code. The genes themselves were not as important as the way they are arranged. Where did this code come from? The only known source on the planet is intelligence. The building instructions embedded in DNA with all of its regulatory and expression networks, points to an intelligent agent. Digital code can only be functional with a convention of understanding. If the receiver has no prior knowledge regarding the instructions or meaning of the symbol that is sent, there is no communication. The English alphabet is a language. For anyone who no knowledge of what the letters mean, what the phrasing of words and the context in which they are expressed, they are meaningless to the receiver.
This is what is going on in DNA. A program implies a programmer. Language implies a writer. DNA is full of information. Highly specified, highly functional information.

“Go over there” is a simple instruction that needs prior knowledge to be understood. This is highly specified, highly functional information.
"hetre vreo og” is also information. It is called Shannon information. Shannon information is what is expected from random mutations. There is the same amount of information there, it just isn’t specified or functional.

 

[Blayz]

Evolution would argue that birds developed hollow bones because weighing less aids flight. Some birds then adapted to be land bound (such as penguins, emus) however still being birds, they maintained a hollow bone structure.

Similarly, bats and other flying mammals have solid bones, despite the obvious disadvantages and unintelligence of the design, because bats are mammals, and they inherited the structure from their ancestor.

So where's the intelligence in these design decisions?

I have plenty of others, but unlike the IDers think the Gish gallop is dishonest.

 

[idscience]

Francis Crick and others knew intuitively that DNA had the hallmarks of design. He is famously quoted as saying,

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." (“What Mad Pursuits”)

Richard Dawkins, famous Atheist and foremost evolution proponent said,

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (The Blind Watchmaker)

Intelligent Design theorists say it is not apparent is it actual.

Design is so intuitive these men have to talk themselves out of what is staring them in the face. Crick was so convinced that it was not possible for DNA to have arose by chance that he adhered to a hypothesis called “Directed Panspirmia” (life was sent here from space)

In the Scientific American an article was published only last year regarding the origin of life on earth. If you thought the decades of experimentation has solved the beginnings you would be wrong.

"Dennis Overbye just wrote a status report for The NewYork Times on research into life’s origin, based on a conference on the topic at Arizona State University. Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life....
RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions...it (RNA) can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist...the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive
Darwinian evolution seem small...
The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to...less dramatic versions of panspermia, microbes arrived on our planet via asteroids, comets or meteorites, or drifted
down like confetti."

The origin of information must be addressed by evolutionists or the hypothesis cannot even get off the ground. There is nothing in evolutionary hypothesis that addresses information. Remember, DNA is a digital code. The information within the base pairs alone does not build animals. They way they are arranged does.

A very good youtube video to watch is “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”
Another video is “Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines”

Both of these videos will change the way you think about the so called simple cell.

 

[Blayz]

You don't have an answer to my question, do you. All you have is parrotted PRATTs you picked up from crappy websites.

A very good youtube video to watch is “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”
Another video is “Drew Berry - Astonishing Molecular Machines”

So wikipedia is a bad source of info, but youtube is a good one.

More IDer cognitive dissonance

Both of these videos will change the way you think about the so called simple cell.

Nothing from the youtube sewer will ever change my mind on any topic. Unlike yourself, some of us are biological scientists that get our information about the cell from original, actual experimentation. Something IDers never do.

No wonder you need to rely on cherry picked quotes from famous people. You never do any work of your own.

 

[idscience]

You don't have an answer to my question, do you. All you have is parrotted PRATTs you picked up from crappy websites.

Your idea about birds makes a good children's story. I see you are a baiter. General ideas are thrown out followed by condesending comments for the purpose of insult.

I am sorry you are so full of anger. There isn't anything I can say to help you since you are not actually interested in conversation. I truely wish you well.

 

[idscience]

Michael Behe coined the phrase, Irreducible Complexity. This describes systems and structures that are comprised of multiple components that are all needed for function.
A light bulb is made up of several components. Each by themselves have no function but together they perform a function. This is irreducible complexity. If you reduce the components of the light bulb it ceases to function. Another term for this is emergent properties, which is a property of systems biology. The old method of braking down biological components into their individual pieces is going to the wayside. Systems biology is the study of integrated biological systems.
Genome research has shown that DNA works in multiple layers across multiple coding and non coding genes. Evolution has discarded the non coding regions of DNA as "junk DNA" which has lead to a stifling of science knowledge. It is now known that non coding DNA or "junk DNA" has function. It has been linked to diseases like cancer.
ID prediction has been that the non coding DNA would have function, and it does. Evolutionists long said it was left over mistakes from millions of years mistakes made in duplication and mutation. This has been called by evolutionary biologists as perhaps the biggest mistake in history.

from July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognize the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA...

"There was order in the 95%. If there was order there was likely to be function. Maybe this was a way to also contribute to understanding the function of genes and therefore their malfunction in disease and in so doing help diagnosis - make earlier diagnosis - help save lives." When he posed his radical theory that this junk might actually have a critical role in diagnosis, his peers announced, "Malcolm, you're off your [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' head...
A leading figure in world genetics, Prof. John Mattick, recently claimed that, "the failure to recognize the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology...
quotes are from ABC.NET
The complexity of the DNA is staggering. Darwin had no idea in his day when he first suggested how diversity of life arose.
The bacterium flagellum is on such irreducibly complex nano machine that works away in the microscopic cell of bacteria. It comprises some 40 individual parts that are all needed for the outboard motor to work. It has a stator, drive shaft, u-joint, propeller, and many other parts known to engineers.
There is no process by which this kind of system can come together by Darwinian means. Evolutionists have tried to explain it by saying it is the result of co-option of two systems that came together. The problem with that is the two system each have 20 or more parts. One of which is a needle type structure that is similar to one of the main components of the flagella motor. but, it would have to go through major changes to work with the other component that has no function without it. So you see, they are trying to take two irreducibly complex and putting them together. How did the two 20 part systems evolve? There is no answer from evolution.
These systems and others are best explained by an intelligent agent. Some will say flippantly that ID thinks God just went "poof" and they were there. This is rooted in ignorance. ID holds to the theory that the instructions for building these systems were written into the code. The provisions were already there in the DNA. Random mutations and natural selection are a poor explanation.

 

[idscience]

This quote pretty much spells out the faith of evolution.

Nobel laureate, Harvard professor George Wald

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible....Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation....
Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles." Given enough time, that which is impossible becomes "virtually certain."

This sums up the logic of the evolutionist. I believe the impossible because I choose to believe in the miracle of time rather than the miracle of God. they can bow down to their god of time, then hurl stones and insults at those who believe in a living God.

 

[Blayz]

Your idea about birds makes a good children's story.

Then address it, stop avoiding it.

I see you are a baiter. General ideas are thrown out followed by condesending comments for the purpose of insult.

What is general about my specific example.

You have...no answer. none at all. Take you out of your comfort zone of mindless cherry picked quotes and you have nothing.

That's pretty sad.

And I see you followed up this lame reply with yet more copypasta from crappy websites.


Still no answer to my question.