Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[Loudmouth]

you missed the point sfs.
i am NOT proposing that ID and similar "theories" have shred of truth.
what i AM saying is that a breakdown in the modern synthesis does 2 things:
it removes a lot of the arguement against said "theories" and gives them a foot in the door.

How?

The modifications that you keep speaking of are as natural and non-intelligent design as the mechanisms that are already a part of theory. How does HGT among bacteria allow ID a foot in the door? How does genetic drift allow creationism a foot in the door?

OTOH, why is ID and other similar "theories" bad?

I can't speak for sfs, but the main problem I find with ID "theories" is that they don't explain anything at best, and ignore what we already know at worst. ID certainly doesn't explain the signatures of selection that sfs sees in genomes. ID doesn't explain the fossil record. ID doesn't explain why we see phylogenies all over the place. What ID boils down to is a malformed argument against evolution that has no intention of gaining new knowledge.

we definitely have ourselves an interesting little dilemma here in regards to life and how it all works.
sure, mendels laws seem pretty simple in operation, but when you move into the mechanics of it all, you move from the simple to a virtual rats nest.

As sfs' own work demonstrates, evolution is a very useful theory for untangling that rats nest.

also, darwin does a fairly decent job with certain select groups of organisms, but when you try to integrate ALL life into this paradigm, it fails.
this is what this "new biology" is all about, to integrate ALL life, not just select groups.

Finding new mechanisms in different groups of species does not mean that the mechanisms in other groups of species goes away. That is what you keep missing. That is what Koonin's email was trying to communicate. The Modern Synthesis isn't being thrown out, just expanded.

a very good analogy would be newtonian physics and relativity.

It isn't the best analogy. Newtonian physics used instantaneous propagation of gravity which is wrong. Darwinian mechanisms aren't wrong. There just happen to be more mechanisms than what Darwin originally proposed.

A better analogy might be Germ Theory. There are some infections that don't perfectly fit Koch's Postulates, but the diseases he studied still do (e.g. Anthrax). Our ideas of what infectious diseases are and what causes them have expanded, but we haven't had to throw out any of Koch's original discoveries. We may consider prions to be infectious diseases even though they aren't truly germs as Koch first described them. However, B. anthracis is still a bacterial species that causes infectious diseases as Koch first discovered.

 

[crjmurray]

Fine, throw it out. The other one stands. AND:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... TACITUS

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." The Talmund

Even if there was just one it would refute Jan's claim.

I'm not throwing anything out. I'm just saying that references to Christians do not quality as references to Christ. This obviously isn't a thread to discuss that topic so I'll bow out. I'm welcome to a PM conversation on the topic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How did male and female originate?

Gradually from isogamous organisms.

Why?

I already gave you a link where you can read about the advantages of sexual reproduction.

But you probably mean another "why" question, right?
You mean the loaded "purpose" version ha?

Yea, that loaded question is an invalid question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't say a couple. I asked for ten.

There are thousands of shared ERV's.

I count each of them as "1".
So you didn't get just 10. You got thousands.

The whale is always used and so is the ERV's

Because they are the easiest to understand examples because so much is known about it. If you are willing to handwave away the most obvious ones, why would anyone spend the energy to try and give you more, perhaps harder to understand, examples?

but I didn't exclude it just to give you a better chance at ten. Eight more please.

I'll give you 2 more, on top of the thousands you already have:
- the mammalian inner earbone vs reptile jaw
- laryngeal nerve

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope I don't deny that Maurice Bucaille is a medical doctor or that he wrote a book explaining how mega accurate the Quran is.

Then you have nothing to object to.

I said and still say that you have no clue how the two are connected and how the Old Testament is viewed in Islam.

Irrelevant. Especially since Bucaille's book concentrated more on topics that are quite different in the Quran as opposed to the bible.

Also, the initial point remains unchallenged....
If you look hard enough, you'll find professionals buying into just about any crazy idea and actively try to defend it while waving with their phd.

It doesn't mean anything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've made it pretty clear.

Then how come I'm still not certain if you accept that humans share ancestry with primates, mammals, tetrapods, eukaryotes? And that humans evolved by the exact same processes as all other living things on this planet?

Because you know, that's also part of evolution theory. Evolution theory is not just this "lowest common denominator" definition you like to state in 1 sentence from time to time.

It doesn't surprise me you don't know because you rarely really read what is being said and go for dismissing it outright.

I think the problem rather is that I not only read what you write - I also read between the lines and consider the implications of the things you say.

But here's your chance to clear it up then....
So, do you accept that humans share ancestry with the rest of living things on this planet? That the processes that produced humans are the same processes that produced all other species?

That this is all driven by random genetic variation / mutation in individuals from one generation to the next?

 

[Oncedeceived]

i really don't buy the "fine tuning" bit.

you can use this same argument for almost ALL chemical reactions.
a very good example would be distillation of closely spaced boiling points.
alter the temp just a little bit, and you get a different product.

the apparent design bit is a little trickier, and i do not have an explanation for it.
the complexities of the living cell are simply phenomenal.
irreducible complexity is the PRIMARY REASON we do not have a theory for the origins of life.

Chemical reactions are part of that fine tuning. If the chemical makeup for water was not what it is life would not exist either.

What makes God ridiculous?

 

[DogmaHunter]

the apparent design bit is a little trickier, and i do not have an explanation for it.
the complexities of the living cell are simply phenomenal.

the argument from "complexity" is just another species of the argument from ignorance/incredulity.

irreducible complexity is the PRIMARY REASON we do not have a theory for the origins of life.

No. We don't have a conclusive theory on the origins of life because we haven't figured it out yet. It's not an easy subject.

IC has nothing to do with that. IC is not even a scientific concept. Or a valid one, for that matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Chemical reactions are part of that fine tuning. If the chemical makeup for water was not what it is life would not exist either.

Yes, yes...

If things were different, then things would be different.

What makes God ridiculous?

Why do you ask that question?

 

[sfs]

you missed the point sfs.
i am NOT proposing that ID and similar "theories" have shred of truth.
what i AM saying is that a breakdown in the modern synthesis does 2 things:
it removes a lot of the arguement against said "theories" and gives them a foot in the door.

Yes, I know that you're saying that. I'm saying that you're wrong about it. Complicating the Modern Synthesis doesn't remove any of the arguments against ID that I'm aware of, and provides no support for ID ideas.

OTOH, why is ID and other similar "theories" bad?
don't get me wrong, i find them as ridiculous as anyone else, but since when has "ridiculous" been proof of anything?

ID has no model, no predictive value and is based on a series of fallacious arguments. This thread is really not the right place to be dissecting it, however.

we definitely have ourselves an interesting little dilemma here in regards to life and how it all works.
sure, mendels laws seem pretty simple in operation, but when you move into the mechanics of it all, you move from the simple to a virtual rats nest.

also, darwin does a fairly decent job with certain select groups of organisms, but when you try to integrate ALL life into this paradigm, it fails.
this is what this "new biology" is all about, to integrate ALL life, not just select groups.

Yeah, I know. As I occasionally point out, this is what I do for a living.

a very good analogy would be newtonian physics and relativity.

Which is what I used to do for a living.

 

[Oncedeceived]

the argument from "complexity" is just another species of the argument from ignorance/incredulity.

Yes, only it is from your camp rather than the theist camp. Ignorance of just how complexity or irreducible complexity in particular arose is no argument for evolution and in fact shows just how little evolution can explain it. It is completely coherent and cohesive in the Christian worldview but how mindless matter brought about such complexity without any goal or purpose is not just incredible but lacking credibili

No. We don't have a conclusive theory on the origins of life because we haven't figured it out yet. It's not an easy subject.

IC has nothing to do with that. IC is not even a scientific concept. Or a valid one, for that matter.

It is not that we haven't figured it out yet as much as what we do know makes it pretty much impossible by natural means. Just as spontaneous generation bit the dust, it more than likely happen to all other such models.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, yes...

If things were different, then things would be different.

Sticking your head in the sand again.

Why do you ask that question?

I wanted an answer.

 

[whois]

It is not that we haven't figured it out yet as much as what we do know makes it pretty much impossible by natural means.

correct.
the research and resources isn't the problem.
it's the apparent impossibility of abiogenesis.

 

[whois]

That is just the atheist argument from incredibility they use against you.

isn't this what an evolutionist would say?

I can cause anything to happen but that doesn't mean I will make things happen that are illogical or unreasonable or even ridiculous.

of course, because you are an actual physical being with a brain, arms, and hands.
where (or what) are these parts in relation to a god?
where is the "god brain"?
where is the "god hands"?
or maybe we should ask "what" instead.
there is only 1 conceivable answer to this in relation to a god, and that is trans dimensionality.
if that assumption is true, then the trans dimensional definitely obeys different laws than normal space time.

 

[[serious]]

Okay.Eve was the last -- and the first.Adam was the last -- and the first.If that's a reference to Noah, Luke says otherwise.

Ok, who was on the ark? Noah, his sons, and his sons wives, correct?

 

[[serious]]

Chemical reactions are part of that fine tuning. If the chemical makeup for water was not what it is life would not exist either.

What makes God ridiculous?

Water is defined by its chemical makeup. If water was something other than h2o, it would simply not be water. That's like saying what if the number 4 wasn't 4.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, who was on the ark? Noah, his sons, and his sons wives, correct?

I think George Burns was on the ark too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Water is defined by its chemical makeup. If water was something other than h2o, it would simply not be water. That's like saying what if the number 4 wasn't 4.

Right. Your point?

 

[Oncedeceived]

isn't this what an evolutionist would say?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. You are claiming the same thing that they claim against my arguments and yours.

of course, because you are an actual physical being with a brain, arms, and hands.
where (or what) are these parts in relation to a god?
where is the "god brain"?
where is the "god hands"?
or maybe we should ask "what" instead.
there is only 1 conceivable answer to this in relation to a god, and that is trans dimensionality.
if that assumption is true, then the trans dimensional definitely obeys different laws than normal space time.

God doesn't obey laws He created them. So I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then how come I'm still not certain if you accept that humans share ancestry with primates, mammals, tetrapods, eukaryotes? And that humans evolved by the exact same processes as all other living things on this planet?

Because you know, that's also part of evolution theory. Evolution theory is not just this "lowest common denominator" definition you like to state in 1 sentence from time to time.



I think the problem rather is that I not only read what you write - I also read between the lines and consider the implications of the things you say.

But here's your chance to clear it up then....
So, do you accept that humans share ancestry with the rest of living things on this planet? That the processes that produced humans are the same processes that produced all other species?

That this is all driven by random genetic variation / mutation in individuals from one generation to the next?

I've answered this several times with you.