Evolution is not really a theory

[ThievingMagpie]

Whatever, dude. When you study life, you find that it gets no less complicated no matter how deep down the subcellular level you go. The flagellum is a full-flledged boat with a propeller, at the subcellular level. If that's not evidence that life was engineered, nothing ever will be to you.

What kind of boats have you been sailing on?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Why?



Only to the uneducated.



And that is the problem. When one looks for the "intelligent design" one finds that it is missing. The giraffes recurrent laryngeal nerve is an excellent example of this. If you look at our "design" you find it is far from intelligent. Instead it runs on "good enough".



I see that you do not understand the scientific method at all. Why don't we start there?

As before, saying "things change" is not a scientific theory, it is a catchall frame of reference. The way evolution scientists are willfully ignorant about how anything is chosen, is also not science. I already explained, you need to study about how decisions are made, for making choices in life, and religion, politics. Basically everything I wrote in this post I have already said, which shows you do not listen.

The giraffe nerve thing has already been proven to be functional for the way it is, same as all ideas about vestigal organs have been disproven, as are the ideas of junk dna being disproven.

I think the crucial thing here is that you don't actually understand how choosing works, and that you don't pay dedicated attention to getting knowledge about it. If you would do that, then you would see intelligent design theory is credible, and that the fact organisms look designed is reasonable evidence that they are designed.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

A theory that explains something -- anything, really -- about biology. To be an explanation, it has to tell me why things are the way they are, rather than some other way. The way we test theories is by using them to predict data we haven't seen yet, and then collecting the data. That's why I'm asking what ID predicts. I know what evolution predicts about genomes, and I know how well the data match up with those predictions. All I'm seeing from ID is a lot of hand-waving and rhetoric.

If intelligent design is true, you would simply expect to find the intelligent decisionmaking processes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As before, saying "things change" is not a scientific theory, it is a catchall frame of reference. The way evolution scientists are willfully ignorant about how anything is chosen, is also not science. I already explained, you need to study about how decisions are made, for making choices in life, and religion, politics. Basically everything I wrote in this post I have already said, which shows you do not listen.

The giraffe nerve thing has already been proven to be functional for the way it is, same as all ideas about vestigal organs have been disproven, as are the ideas of junk dna being disproven.

I think the crucial thing here is that you don't actually understand how choosing works, and that you don't pay dedicated attention to getting knowledge about it. If you would do that, then you would see intelligent design theory is credible, and that the fact organisms look designed is reasonable evidence that they are designed.

We do know how traits are "chosen". Natural selection is the method. No intelligence needed. And no, creationists have no answer to the poor design of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Why do you make claims that you cannot support?

I will gladly help you understanding this, but since you do not even appear to understand the scientific method we have to go over that first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If intelligent design is true, you would simply expect to find the intelligent decisionmaking processes.

Now it appears that you are claiming ID is false.

 

[HitchSlap]

When Charles Darwin himself eschews his own theory, I think it's safe to say evolution is a theory.

Ouch... what's that Lincoln quote about opening your mouth?

 

[Shemjaza]

1. You have to study decisionmaking anyway
2. the organisms look designed
3. go look for intelligent design
4. seek and ye shall find
5. All people who pay dedicated attention to understanding how things are chosen in the universe, support some theory of inteligent design
6. Only those who have personal problems accepting choice is real altogether, do not support intelligent design

You aren't presenting a system that can be practically used.

An emotional intuition that something is or isn't planned or designed may be good for your mental well-being and personal satisfaction, but it is useless as a scientific tool.

That's the biggest problem with every version of Intelligent Design I've been presented with: it's functionally useless.

 

[Belk]

As before, saying "things change" is not a scientific theory, it is a catchall frame of reference. The way evolution scientists are willfully ignorant about how anything is chosen, is also not science. I already explained, you need to study about how decisions are made, for making choices in life, and religion, politics. Basically everything I wrote in this post I have already said, which shows you do not listen.

The giraffe nerve thing has already been proven to be functional for the way it is, same as all ideas about vestigal organs have been disproven, as are the ideas of junk dna being disproven.

I think the crucial thing here is that you don't actually understand how choosing works, and that you don't pay dedicated attention to getting knowledge about it. If you would do that, then you would see intelligent design theory is credible, and that the fact organisms look designed is reasonable evidence that they are designed.

I guess it is a good thing that is not the theory of evolution. Perhaps you should learn what the theory is before you try to disparage it?

 

[sfs]

If intelligent design is true, you would simply expect to find the intelligent decisionmaking processes.

As I said, your "theory" predicts nothing at all about genome comparisons.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

The organisms look designed.

One can see that in philosophy free will is continuously regarded as a problem for centuries. So it is widely known that people have a problem with free will.

 

[sfs]

It is very obvious to me that people have some kind of psychological barrier why they don't want to have any knowledge about how anything is chosen.

If everyone thinks your ideas are wrong, it's possible that they all have a psychological barrier to accepting your obvious wisdom. It's also possible that your ideas are wrong. History suggests that the latter is more likely.

 

[Nithavela]

If everyone thinks your ideas are wrong, it's possible that they all have a psychological barrier to accepting your obvious wisdom. It's also possible that your ideas are wrong. History suggests that the latter is more likely.

I dont know, we might have a new Semmelweis on our hands here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The organisms look designed.

One can see that in philosophy free will is continuously regarded as a problem for centuries. So it is widely known that people have a problem with free will.

Only to those that lack understanding. "Looks like" is not worth much in the sciences. You need evidence. In the scientific world that means first you need to have a testable hypothesis and then see if observations support it or oppose it. If you cannot form a testable hypothesis then you do not even have evidence.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

If everyone thinks your ideas are wrong, it's possible that they all have a psychological barrier to accepting your obvious wisdom. It's also possible that your ideas are wrong. History suggests that the latter is more likely.

If someone had excellent knowledge about people making choices, and they would not support intelligent design theory, that would be some point. But it appears you all reject knowledge about how anything is chosen in general.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone had excellent knowledge about people making choices, and they would not support intelligent design theory, that would be some point. But it appears you all reject knowledge about how anything is chosen in general.

Still no evidence I see. Only more "because I said so".

 

[Larniavc]

Actually I meant the efficient functional complexity of organisms requires intelligent design.

What units are you measuring complexity in?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

What units are you measuring complexity in?

The number of different parts that contribute to an efficient function.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Macroevolution has never been successfully duplicated in the lab.

 

[tyke]

Yet more attitude.

This attitude of yours is not not very helpful towards people who are trying to help you see that saying "it looks designed" is not how science works.

 

[tyke]

It seems he has too much belief tied up in intelligent design to be able to be objective about it.