Intelligent Design / Evolution

Lion Hearted Man · Apr 19, 2012

idscience said:
What I don't have is time for nonsense. Same guys with the same game. You guys run your games and I'll just keep posting the news. If I come across a legitimate comment or question, I will respond. The general viewership is smart enough to figure things out.

Hey man, you brought up the paper. That paper is not evidence against evolution. Mine and others' posts specifically state why it is possible that bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics could have risen before or without human use of those antibiotics -- because those antibiotics are natural compounds. We didn't invent the antibiotics in that paper, we isolated them from microorganisms.

idscience · Apr 19, 2012

Lion Hearted Man said:
Hey man, you brought up the paper. That paper is not evidence against evolution. Mine and others' posts specifically state why it is possible that bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics could have risen before or without human use of those antibiotics -- because those antibiotics are natural compounds. We didn't invent the antibiotics in that paper, we isolated them from microorganisms.

Then why the big ta-do about "nylon eating bacteria"? It is the evolution shell game that I have little time for. Resistance is merely a variation and not connected to UCA, though it is used a proof by many.

Keep in mind, evolution is not in dispute. Common descent hypothesis is. They are different. The thread title says evolution to keep things simple and understandable to the masses as the masses view evolution as single concept.

You state how easy or possible it is for these bacteria to be resistant, yet you (evolutionists) don't apply the same critical thinking, or loose logic to the development of nylonase in Flavobacterium. In all probability a one step mutation. Instead it is marketed all over evolutiondom as proof of UCA? Consistency my man, a little consistency would be nice.

thegandyman · Apr 19, 2012

I think the biggest problem with ID is that it's not clearly defined. You can believe in ID and believe in evolution, just not Darwinian evolution. Most in the ID camp are of the theistic evolution variety (Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, etc). However, you could also believe in ID and be a Young Earth Creationist. It's not clearly defined enough what they are trying to solve other than that Darwinian evolution is wrong and that there is evidence for a designer. I pointed out on another thread, the biggest problem with this I see is that if science can prove God then science can disprove God.

idscience · Apr 19, 2012

thegandyman said:
I think the biggest problem with ID is that it's not clearly defined. You can believe in ID and believe in evolution, just not Darwinian evolution. Most in the ID camp are of the theistic evolution variety (Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, etc). However, you could also believe in ID and be a Young Earth Creationist. It's not clearly defined enough what they are trying to solve other than that Darwinian evolution is wrong and that there is evidence for a designer. I pointed out on another thread, the biggest problem with this I see is that if science can prove God then science can disprove God.

ID is used by anyone who believes in an intelligent designer. They do not define ID. I agree, ID needs refining but it is new compared to Darwinism.
There is clear differences between ID and evolution. YOu can't just through out that word without defining what you are talking about. Everyone knows things change over time. It was known long before Darwin. This is not inconsistent with ID. ID parts with evolution in the area of information gain, and increased complexity (new parts, organs, body plans)
ID does not support a young earth. ID only supports what the science supports. Theistic evolutionists don't support ID they support evolution. It was just started with God. Something without any scientific support at all. In "Signature In The Cell" Meyer speaks directly to this and how ther is evidence against "frontloading". Behe has also writen extensively about the limites of mutation and selection. ie: "The Edge of Evolution". Don't confuse ID with those who just use it to support what ever they believe to be true. ID is bound under the same constraints and rules any other hypothesis/theory is.
ID is not creationism or many other things its opponents would like to link it to.
There are many disagreements among evolutionists, it would be expected to have disagreements among ID scientists too.

USincognito · Apr 19, 2012

Elendur said:
How is this evidence against evolution?

More importantly, how do cdesign proponentists explain Ida and other D. masillae finds?

idscience · Apr 19, 2012

USincognito said:
More importantly, how do cdesign proponentists explain Ida and other D. masillae finds?

Explain what? It's not a link to anything. That was the point of the post.
When you buy a million dollar fossil sight unseen, you have an agenda. That is the point. Their desperation to come up with something, anything that could remotely point to Universal Common Ancestry, then promote and market the daylights out of it like its, well, the "missing link" to coin a phrase.

When a hypothesis has to work that hard to legitimize itself, it is time to move on to reevaluate.

Why is it when evolution data falls flat on its face, the evolutionists don't say they were wrong about that one. Instead, they turn the question around and fault let's say, an ID proponent for not being able to explain it?

The burdon of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case the dudes who spent decades studying IDA.

USincognito · Apr 20, 2012

idscience said:
Explain what? It's not a link to anything. That was the point of the post.

You could have just said, "cdesign proponentism don't have an explanation". But, since you desperately flailed around trying to make a point, I'll go ahead and eviscerate it.

idscience said:
When you buy a million dollar fossil sight unseen, you have an agenda.

Yes, in the case of Ida it was to create a huge buzz for the museum in Norway, sell a book and get a TV show produced. The actual paper described a being that might or might not be related to anthropoids. The phantasmal agenda you describe in the rest of your post exists only in the minds of cdesign proponentists.

idscience said:
Their desperation to come up with something, anything that could remotely point to Universal Common Ancestry, then promote and market the daylights out of it like its...

How the heck is an ancestral proto-primate supposed to demonstrate Universal Common Ancestry? That is actually demonstrated by the existance of a single genetic code in DNA and in numerous genes that are shared (in one incarnation or another) by nearly every living being.

And, again, those trumpeting Ida is "the link" were those promoting her to make a name for themselves and as much money as possible. This cabal of paleontologists lying about her relatedness to humans, also, again, exists only in the fevered imaginations of cdesign proponentists.
Afradapis and "Ida", sittin' in a tree... : Laelaps

The fact that access to the scientific description of Darwinius was tightly controlled until after the media frenzy was initiated by Atlantic Productions meant that science took a backseat to hype.

Indeed, paleontologists who specialize in the study of early primates were not impressed by Darwinius. The fossil primate bore very little resemblance to the earliest known anthropoids, and critics soon found themselves fighting a battle on two fronts. The initial description of Darwinius, despite being much more reserved than the media hype, did not provide solid support that this primate was closely related to anthropoids. Much of the media coverage, by contrast, simply parroted unsubstantiated claims that Darwinius was one of our ancestors. Both the "strong" and "weak" interpretations of Darwinius had major flaws, and it was tricky responding to both versions of Ida's story.

idscience said:
Why is it when evolution data falls flat on its face, the evolutionists don't say they were wrong about that one.

Again, "evolution data" didn't fall flat on its face - wanton self-promotion on the part of museum curator and a production company fell flat on its face. Further, was it cdesign proponentists who properly identified Ida not as a basal primate, but an adapid that may or may have been related to anthropoids? No, it was actual paleontologists in the original PoLS article.
PLoS ONE: Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology
And others who took them to task with science, not cdesign proponentism.
http://strainlab.uchicago.edu/publications/Williams et al 2010.pdf

idscience said:
Instead, they turn the question around and fault let's say, an ID proponent for not being able to explain it?

Ironic. You spin my question - the point of which was to show that cdesign proponentism has no explanatory power when it comes to Ida, or any fossil for that matter - around to act as if I am playing games by asking it. Wow, just wow.

idscience · Apr 20, 2012

Common Ancestry is dead. It just hasn't laid down yet.

Trogool · Apr 20, 2012

idscience said:
Common Ancestry is dead. It just hasn't laid down yet.

According to what research study in which peer reviewed journal or which theoretical paper in which peer reviewed journal as of 2012?

idscience · Apr 20, 2012

And, how about ARDI?
'Ardi,' Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled : Discovery News

Yet another missing link

This article is ridiculous. Read some of the conclusions picked right out of the air. For example, she used tools made of leaves and twigs?

"The scientists suspect Ardi used simple tools, such as twigs and leaves"
"Lovejoy of the project suspects that Ardipithecus males were probably pair-bonded to specific females, and may have aided them by gathering and carrying foods."
Such provisioning by males would have favored those males who could best walk on two feet, according to the researchers, allowing them free hands for carrying food. Provisioned females could have "intensified their parenting" and carried their infants, which is easier to do in woodland environments when the forelimbs are free."

Wow, just Wow! and maybe an Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhahahahahahha!!!!!

17 years of study and they figured out carrying groceries played a big roll in evolution. I agree woman are a powerful selective process.
You mock and laugh at ID theorists and accept this nonsense as solid science. I'll tell ya, not feelin to threatened by the "overwhelming" evidence for common descent.

Here is one of several papers questioning ARDi's qualifications.
ScienceDirect.com - HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology - Behavioral and phylogenetic implications of a narrow allometric study of Ardipithecus ramidus

YOu know, with this stuff happening regularly in the evolution society, you would think they would tone down the mocking of others. Is it a wonder only 12 or 14 percent take any of them seriously.

idscience · Apr 20, 2012

Trogool said:
According to what research study in which peer reviewed journal or which theoretical paper in which peer reviewed journal as of 2012?

According to the LACK of any credible submissions in any of the above, and those that do make it in that are twisted, bent and blatantly off topic, only get reversed later by real scientists.

David Jerome · Apr 20, 2012

The problem with ID, is that there isn't a scientific definition of "design" that can be applied to nature. I think ID is interesting from a philosophical standpooint, but it falls flat in the face of science.

USincognito · Apr 20, 2012

Yay! Watch posts 705 to 710 folks and you can watch the Gish Gallop in action!

Elendur · Apr 20, 2012

I noticed that your OP is a bit poorly designed, I located the posts for you and gave them links (it's a hassle trying to locate them):

#6
#32
#34
#42
#70
#116
#118
#126
#151
#177
#184
#227
#257
#369
#418
#467
#558
#559
#574
#609

It's good that you've divided the post into positive evidence for ID and evidence against evolution. (Because frankly, to support something with positive evidence rather than dirt flinging is much better)

Though I'm wondering why you've had this in the positive evidence bunch:
#6 , #184 , #151 , #177 , #70 (haven't watched the videos, so I'll refrain from stating anything about them).

They are not containing evidence for ID.

idscience · Apr 20, 2012

Elendur said:
I noticed that your OP is a bit poorly designed, I located the posts for you and gave them links (it's a hassle trying to locate them):

It's good that you've divided the post into positive evidence for ID and evidence against evolution. (Because frankly, to support something with positive evidence rather than dirt flinging is much better)

Though I'm wondering why you've had this in the positive evidence bunch:
#6 , #184 , #151 , #177 , #70 (haven't watched the videos, so I'll refrain from stating anything about them).

They are not containing evidence for ID.

The censored science posts are not in either cat but I wanted to list them. They show stifling of ID so that is why they are in that list.

Lion Hearted Man · Apr 20, 2012

idscience said:
Then why the big ta-do about "nylon eating bacteria"?

Nylon is purely synthetic. Don't you get it? Most antibiotics are compounds found in nature, so we would expect them to affect bacterial evolution. Nylon is not found in nature, so before we invented it, it had no impact on bacterial evolution.

idscience said:
It is the evolution shell game that I have little time for.

You need to find a new hobby, then.

idscience said:
Resistance is merely a variation and not connected to UCA, though it is used a proof by many.

The mechanisms of resistance fall directly in what evolution is all about. Selective pressure, altered genetics and gene expression, and a phenotypic outcome that is favorable to the organism.

idscience said:
Keep in mind, evolution is not in dispute. Common descent hypothesis is. They are different. The thread title says evolution to keep things simple and understandable to the masses as the masses view evolution as single concept.

Oh please. Is this some other version of micro/macroevolution distinctions?

idscience said:
You state how easy or possible it is for these bacteria to be resistant, yet you (evolutionists) don't apply the same critical thinking, or loose logic to the development of nylonase in Flavobacterium. In all probability a one step mutation. Instead it is marketed all over evolutiondom as proof of UCA? Consistency my man, a little consistency would be nice.

Nylon = purely synthetic.
Antibiotics = found in nature.

Do we need to go over that again?

Elendur · Apr 20, 2012

idscience said:
The censored science posts are not in either cat but I wanted to list them. They show stifling of ID so that is why they are in that list.

Then why put them in any category? It's false labeling if you're going to put them there. It's not wrong to just give them space, not categorizing them at all.

Split Rock · Apr 20, 2012

idscience said:
Common Ancestry is dead. It just hasn't laid down yet.

Here's a short history of the Prediction of the "Imminent Demise" of Evolution: Demise of Evolution?

idscience · Apr 20, 2012

Elendur said:
Then why put them in any category? It's false labeling if you're going to put them there. It's not wrong to just give them space, not categorizing them at all.

Wow, your a tuff room! The original post of this thread has been reorganized.

DennisTate · Apr 20, 2012

Originally Posted by idscience
Common Ancestry is dead. It just hasn't laid down yet.

Actually, I cannot entirely agree with this assertion because there is a fascinating story in the Book of Jasher stating that one third of the people who rebelled during the time of the City of Babel were turned into elephants or apes....The fact that chimpanzees actually have ONE MORE chromosome than we humans do, in my opinion, gives at least some credence to this strange tale that I am simply not a sufficiently good scholar or scientist to utterly rule out as impossible?!

And the Lord smote the three divisions that were there, and he punished them according to their works and designs; those who said, We will ascend to heaven and serve our gods, became like apes and elephants; and those who said, We will smite the heaven with arrows, the Lord killed them, one man through the hand of his neighbor; and the third division of those who said, We will ascend to heaven and fight against him, the Lord scattered them throughout the earth.

Book of Jasher 9

Intelligent Design / Evolution

Eternal Newbie

Regular Member

Chicken legs

Regular Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Regular Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Gamer and mathematician

Regular Member

Eternal Newbie

Gamer and mathematician

Conflation of Blathers

Regular Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency