Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Jazer]

we still don't have a working definition of "intelligent design."

Michael Behe and William Dembski argued for ID. Mostly based on the fine tuned universe and of course the traditional William Paley argument. Then of course Sir Fred Hoyle showed how impossible the math was for evolution theory. So ID right now is based more on irreducible complexity. There have been many discussions about this on here. Right now no one seems interested because it does not really go anywhere. If you take the eye for example. We know that many different species developed the eye independent of each other. Evolution theory would require a common ancestor with an eye and we do not see that.

 

[Elendur]

If you take the eye for example. We know that many different species developed the eye independent of each other. Evolution theory would require a common ancestor with an eye and we do not see that.

I'm confused, you're using a pro-evolution argument saying the eye has evolved independently in different species.
Then you're using an anti-evolution argument saying that evolution theory requires a common ancestor with eyes.

The first argument is interesting but if I read into the second one a little bit more:

What you're saying (my interpretation) is that a special feature found in different species needs to have a common origin according to ToE.

Now... I'm claiming this is false, please provide a source (or if I've misinterpreted, a correct interpretation).

 

[Hobz]

Michael Behe and William Dembski argued for ID. Mostly based on the fine tuned universe and of course the traditional William Paley argument. Then of course Sir Fred Hoyle showed how impossible the math was for evolution theory. So ID right now is based more on irreducible complexity. There have been many discussions about this on here. Right now no one seems interested because it does not really go anywhere. If you take the eye for example. We know that many different species developed the eye independent of each other. Evolution theory would require a common ancestor with an eye and we do not see that.

Michael Behe is the inventor of Irreducible Complexity (IC), and he definitely used it as one of his main arguments since he coined the term. Unfortunately IC was shown to be false at the Dover trial. Since then, more and more flaws have been found in the concept of IC.

As for your argument about the eye and the common ancestor with the eye, I barely understand it, if you're talking about the recent common ancestor which we have with the rest of the great apes, sure it had eyes. If you're talking about the universal comon ancestor, there's no logical reason why it should have had eyes, there's no eyes on bacteria right? Either way, that question is like a smack of ignorance to the face.

 

[Split Rock]

Michael Behe and William Dembski argued for ID. Mostly based on the fine tuned universe and of course the traditional William Paley argument. Then of course Sir Fred Hoyle showed how impossible the math was for evolution theory. So ID right now is based more on irreducible complexity. There have been many discussions about this on here. Right now no one seems interested because it does not really go anywhere. If you take the eye for example. We know that many different species developed the eye independent of each other. Evolution theory would require a common ancestor with an eye and we do not see that.

I believe all eyes do share the same regulatory genes: the Pax gene family.
Flexibly deployed Pax genes in eye development at the early evolution of animals demonstrated by studies on a hydrozoan jellyfish

Flexibly deployed Pax genes in eye development at the early evolution of animals demonstrated by studies on a hydrozoan jellyfish
Hiroshi Suga a , 1 , Patrick Tschopp a , 2 , Daria F. Graziussi a , 3 , Michael Stierwald b , 4 , Volker Schmid b , 5 , and Walter J. Gehring a , 6
+ Author Affiliations

aDepartment of Cell Biology, Biozentrum, and
bInstitute of Zoology, Pharmazentrum, University of Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
+ Author Notes

↵ 1Present address: Parc Cientifíc de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.

↵ 2Present address: Department of Zoology and Animal Biology, Sciences III, University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland.

↵ 3Present address: Institut für Entwiklungsbiologie, Universität zu Köln, 50923 Köln, Germany.

↵ 4Present address: Patent Department, Novartis Pharma AG, 4056 Basel, Switzerland.

↵ 5Deceased April 1, 2008.
Contributed by Walter J. Gehring, June 14, 2010 (sent for review April 8, 2010)

Abstract
Pax transcription factors are involved in a variety of developmental processes in bilaterians, including eye development, a role typically assigned to Pax-6. Although no true Pax-6 gene has been found in nonbilateral animals, some jellyfish have eyes with complex structures. In the cubozoan jellyfish Tripedalia, Pax-B, an ortholog of vertebrate Pax-2/5/8, had been proposed as a regulator of eye development. Here we have isolated three Pax genes (Pax-A, Pax-B, and Pax-E) from Cladonema radiatum, a hydrozoan jellyfish with elaborate eyes. Cladonema Pax-A is strongly expressed in the retina, whereas Pax-B and Pax-E are highly expressed in the manubrium, the feeding and reproductive organ. Misexpression of Cladonema Pax-A induces ectopic eyes in Drosophila imaginal discs, whereas Pax-B and Pax-E do not. Furthermore, Cladonema Pax-A paired domain protein directly binds to the 5′ upstream region of eye-specific Cladonema opsin genes, whereas Pax-B does not. Our data suggest that Pax-A, but not Pax-B or Pax-E, is involved in eye development and/or maintenance in Cladonema. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that Pax-6, Pax-B, and Pax-A belong to different Pax subfamilies, which diverged at the latest before the Cnidaria–Bilateria separation. We argue that our data, showing the involvement of Pax genes in hydrozoan eye development as in bilaterians, supports the monophyletic evolutionary origin of all animal eyes. We then propose that during the early evolution of animals, distinct classes of Pax genes, which may have played redundant roles at that time, were flexibly deployed for eye development in different animal lineages.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Michael Behe and William Dembski argued for ID. Mostly based on the fine tuned universe and of course the traditional William Paley argument. Then of course Sir Fred Hoyle showed how impossible the math was for evolution theory. So ID right now is based more on irreducible complexity. There have been many discussions about this on here. Right now no one seems interested because it does not really go anywhere. If you take the eye for example. We know that many different species developed the eye independent of each other. Evolution theory would require a common ancestor with an eye and we do not see that.

A quick internet search would make you look less foolish.

 

[Davian]

Well we've got 14 pages now, and still no-one is convinced, we still don't have a working definition of "intelligent design." You missed all my posts too, I'd love if you could respond to the logical argument with the begging the question fallacy and I related it to your lack of "intelligent design" definition.

IC can't be supported, ID can't be defined, the predictions are few, and the applications are none whatsoever; I'd be nice and say this is a sinking boat, but this little cruise ship hit its iceberg long, long ago.

Sure enough, but there always seems to be that next someone that will dredge that little ship back up, put on some fresh paint, and take another run at the icebergs.

 

[idscience]

Michael Behe is the inventor of Irreducible Complexity (IC), and he definitely used it as one of his main arguments since he coined the term. Unfortunately IC was shown to be false at the Dover trial. Since then, more and more flaws have been found in the concept of IC.

As for your argument about the eye and the common ancestor with the eye, I barely understand it, if you're talking about the recent common ancestor which we have with the rest of the great apes, sure it had eyes. If you're talking about the universal comon ancestor, there's no logical reason why it should have had eyes, there's no eyes on bacteria right? Either way, that question is like a smack of ignorance to the face.

Hobz Please, are you kidding me. Proved false at the Dover trial?? More and more flaws? Don't think so. What there is, is more and more guesses as to how evolution may have, could have, maybe but we can't show how, it might of happened. Only in evolution can you suggest something and then it is fact, without facts. More and more people just "saying" it has been defeated.

The eye, evolution can't get to a photocell let alone to an entire vision center. Stick so something a little simpler like cillia. Try to find a paper on how cilia evolved. Don't think you will find one.

State some facts for a change instead of using, "it could have happened" as source material. I think I read some smart fella here say, evolution only has to show a plausibility to be true, no facts required... OH boy, is that how it works? Actually, that is the only way it can work.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Hobz Please, are you kidding me. Proved false at the Dover trial?? More and more flaws? Don't think so. What there is, is more and more guesses as to how evolution may have, could have, maybe but we can't show how, it might of happened. Only in evolution can you suggest something and then it is fact, without facts. More and more people just "saying" it has been defeated.

The eye, evolution can't get to a photocell let alone to an entire vision center. Stick so something a little simpler like cillia. Try to find a paper on how cilia evolved. Don't think you will find one.

State some facts for a change instead of using, "it could have happened" as source material. I think I read some smart fella here say, evolution only has to show a plausibility to be true, no facts required... OH boy, is that how it works? Actually, that is the only way it can work.

Yep, All the yahoos as DI left your poster boy Behe to languish on the stand alone... got his lunch handed to him. Even a Bush appointed conservative Christian judge saw through the BS that is id/creo.

 

[idscience]

www-biology.ucsd.edu:1705/classes/old.../EyeGeneEvolution.pdf​

Typical article disconnect between title and evidence. Nothing in here shows how an eye evolved. Lots of maybe's and seem to's. It is more about what is not known.

Eye evolution: a question of genetic promiscuity​

Dan-E Nilsson

"...the impressive optical design of eyes
seems to have evolved multiple times independently,
but from only a few ancient types of photoreceptor cell.​

An earlier morphological investigation

​

​

​

​

[28] even suggested​

that eyes evolved independently between 40​

and 65 times, but this was probably taken to be an​

exaggeration by most visual physiologists. These views​

might seem incompatible with the discovery that eye​

formation in Bilateria is almost universally initiated by a​

transcription factor from a family of conserved homologous​

genes, now generally termed ​

​

​

Pax6 [34–36]. Naturally,​

this led to the suggestion that all eyes date back to a​

common ancestor with a prototypic eye formed by related​

genetic pathways ​

​

​

[35]. But the accumulated evidence for​

multiple origins of eyes could not be so easily discarded,​

leading to the now decade-long controversy on how eyes​

evolved. However, there is no reason to exaggerate the​

depth of the controversy because it is partly semantic.​

The proposed prototypic eye is simple, with only one​

photoreceptor cell and one pigment cell

​

​

[35]. To most​

visual physiologists, this is not an eye; ... Visual physiologists and​

developmental geneticists alike will still have to agree

that the optical design of cephalopod and vertebrate eyes​

remains an impressive case of convergent evolution.​

The core of the controversy is more fundamental and​

rests on the fact that homologous developmental genes​

generate paralogous photodetection systems. The differences​

between rhabdomeric and ciliary photoreceptor​

cells are profound, as described above, but the general​

homology in eye developmental genetics seems equally​

profound. It is not just ​

​

​

Pax6 genes that are shared in eye​

development. An entire regulatory circuit involving the​

​

​

genes ​

​

​

...

After these genes have determined the eye field, a self-propagating wave is set up by short range signaling from homologous genes in zebra fish (Shh; Sonic hedgehog) and Drosophila (hh; hedgehog) [43–46]. This wave of Shh/hh signaling moves across the eye field to activate the proneural gene Atonal and turn off Pax6. In both zebra fish and Drosophila the result is a regular array of founder cells from which the mosaic of retinal cells​

differentiate ​

​

​

From these striking similarities it might seem that vertebrate​

and insect eyes must date back to a rather advanced

ancestral eye. But picking out only the similarities can be​

deceptive. The waves of ​

​

​

hh or Shh expression are different​

in important details. In ​

Drosophila, hh is necessary for​

neurogenesis and eye formation, whereas in zebra ​

fish, Shh

is mainly responsible for the regular spacing of ganglion​

cells, but not necessary for eye formation.

In vertebrates other than zebra ​

fish, such as Xenopus, mouse, and chicken, the effects of Shh signalling differ markedly from those in

Drosophila...​

...which indicates that homologies​

of developmental genes need not correspond​

​

​

entirely with morphological homologies.​

"

First, evo's said eyes all developed independently dozens of times. Sure, what are the odds of that. ​

Tomorrow there will be another article "shedding new light" on evolution saying something completely different as they chase their tails once again.​

 

[idscience]

How handy is that? gene homology doesn't have to match morphological homology.
Did you see that pesky photocell and pigment cell. It's all that is needed? Useless, if they aren't hooked up. No selection. AND! no one is showing how the "simple" photocell showed up in the first place.

This convergence idea, is interesting. I don't think I have seen any papers showing this happening. Or is this another convenient piece of evolution that is a fact without the need of empirical evidence? Of course outside of it looks similar. I see the logic. Some similar structures that are present in cells could go wild, ignore regulatory systems, modify or completely make themselves over and connect to other systems and or structures to happen to randomly form an advantage for survival. Has anybody shown this to happen in a lab? There must be because as Hobz says, IC has been destroyed no only by a "judge" (here come da judge) but also by scientists. So where is the evidence? I haven't seen any and I certainly don't want to continue arguing for something that has been empirically disproved.

Look at the complexity of systems explained in that article. It is no wonder, no one can produce a step by step method of how these IC systems came about. They can't. At least no one has shown how they can. I know, lots of guys have surmised but that isn't how science works is it. Funny how those who scream the loudest for evidence form ID science, are able to rationalize not needing any evidence themselves. That is a sign of faith.

 

[idscience]

Yep, All the yahoos as DI left your poster boy Behe to languish on the stand alone... got his lunch handed to him. Even a Bush appointed conservative Christian judge saw through the BS that is id/creo.

You are hi-larry-ous. Actually hiding a parret judge. He just read what the NCSE wrote for him.

CSC - The Truth About the Dover Intelligent Design Trial
CSC - A Textbook Case of Judicial Activism
Atheist: Bradley Monton's Paper criticizing Dover Decision
www.arn.org/docs/monton/is_intelligent_design_science.pdf

The Arrogant Consensus​

Dr. Hannes Alfvèn Founder Of Field in Physics“In 1942 he predicted that magnetic field lines in a plasma, like stretched rubber bands, could transmit a wave. At first this idea was ridiculed, but such phenomena were eventually observed and came to be known as Alfven waves.” “He was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals,” Dr. Dessler said, and he was continually disputed by other specialists in his field of research.” (New York Times)

Louis Pasteur Shunned by Scientists (Sure, faith is a science stopper)
"first to describe the scientific basis of fermentation. Shunned by doctors and fellow scientists,..Pasteur discovered that weakened forms of microbes could be used as an immunization against more virulent forms of microbes. As a pioneer of immunology,..

Pasteur lived at a time when thousands of people died each year of rabies. He spent years working on a vaccine. Just as he was about to experiment on himself, a nine-year-old boy, Joseph Meister, was bitten by a rabid dog. The boy's mother begged Pasteur to experiment on her son. Pasteur injected the boy for 10 days -- and the boy lived. Decades later, of all things Pasteur could have etched on his tombstone, he asked for 3 words, "Joseph Meister lived." Pasteur believed our greatest legacy to be those who live eternally because of our effort.

Pasteur also discovered the parasite responsible for killing silkworms, and saved the French silk industry by recommending that all infected worms and mulberries be destroyed...

Rather than destroying his belief in God, Pasteur's brilliant discoveries made him humble as he contemplated the marvels of divine creation. He argued that the notion of spontaneous generation (like materialism) threatens the very concept of God the Creator."

Vindicated: Ridiculed Israeli chemist wins Nobel
"When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.
After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry."

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
"Chandra originated Black Hole theory and published several papers. He was attacked viciously by his close colleague Sir Arthur Eddington, and his theory was discredited in the eyes of the research community. They were wrong, and Eddington apparently took such strong action based on an incorrect pet theory of his own. In the end Chandra could not even pursue a career in England, and he moved his research to the U. of Chicago in 1937, laboring in relative obscurity for decades. Others rediscovered Black Hole theory thirty years later. He won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics"

C.J. Doppler
"Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.)"

Ignaz Semmelweis ("savior of mothers")
"Semmelweis brought the medical community the idea that they were killing large numbers of new mothers by working with festering wounds in surgery, then immediately assisting with births without even washing hands. Such a truth was far too shameful for a community of experts to accept, so he was ignored. Semmelweis finally ended up in a mental hospital, and his ideas caught fire after he had died."

The ancient Jews knew about higene from the books of Moses. Loaded with how to deal with sores, blood, and fluids.

As I see it, INTELLIGENT DESIGN is in good company. The arrogance of science is an old one.

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
Jonathan Swift ​

 

[Blayz]

A whole bunch of examples of science not only correcting its mistakes, but honoring the people in involved. Once again, what you see as a weakness of science because of your slavish devotion to a particular interpretation of a 2000 year old book, is in fact its greatest strength.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So it appears that idscience is trying to say that because ID is a currently rejected and ridiculed theory and other past rejected and ridiculed theories have later become accepted, then we should just skip a few steps and accept ID.

That is your logic, no?

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. All of these formerly rejected and ridiculed theories were accepted because the evidence for them grew to the point that it was obvious that they were true. ID hasn't even come close to that. First of all, it is non-testable (as pointed out many times already in this thread). No one has yet to pose a successful test for design and the results can't be repeated since none of us is this "Intelligent Designer" (aka God). Second, the majority of your arguments consist of "well, evolution can't explain it, so it must have been designed." I hate to break it to you, but logic doesn't work like that.

 

[Cabal]

As I see it, INTELLIGENT DESIGN is in good company. The arrogance of science is an old one.

Yet again - you need evidence.

ID has none. Simply claiming maverick status doesn't cut it.

 

[idscience]

A whole bunch of examples of science not only correcting its mistakes, but honoring the people in involved. Once again, what you see as a weakness of science because of your slavish devotion to a particular interpretation of a 2000 year old book, is in fact its greatest strength.

Only an evolutionist can take pride in those examples.

It's not a book, it is 66 books, and its older than 2000 years. But I would not expect you to get bogged down with facts. Evolutionists aren't used to using them.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Only an evolutionist can take pride in those examples.

So you must be an "evolutionist" then, since you're using those examples as grounds to have ID accepted. ID would then become one of those examples, and you take pride in ID, right?

It's not a book, it is 66 books, and its older than 2000 years. But I would not expect you to get bogged down with facts. Evolutionists aren't used to using them.

What does the exact age and number of books have to do with anything? I'll restate:

"A whole bunch of examples of science not only correcting its mistakes, but honoring the people in involved. Once again, what you see as a weakness of science because of your slavish devotion to a particular interpretation of 66 really old books."

Happy now?

 

[idscience]

So it appears that idscience is trying to say that because ID is a currently rejected and ridiculed theory and other past rejected and ridiculed theories have later become accepted, then we should just skip a few steps and accept ID.

That is your logic, no?

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. All of these formerly rejected and ridiculed theories were accepted because the evidence for them grew to the point that it was obvious that they were true. ID hasn't even come close to that. First of all, it is non-testable (as pointed out many times already in this thread). No one has yet to pose a successful test for design and the results can't be repeated since none of us is this "Intelligent Designer" (aka God). Second, the majority of your arguments consist of "well, evolution can't explain it, so it must have been designed." I hate to break it to you, but logic doesn't work like that.

Logic is all evolution has. It can't be tested, can't be observed, never has, can be reproduced in a lab. It is a guess based on similarity. Some believe you can test for intelligence. You don't agree with that. That is fine. Many didn't agree with the scientists above.

My arguments for ID are not about evolutions gaping holes. They are just mentioned as to it's inatequacy as an explanation for anything.

ID has better a explanation for origins, Evo has none, so thats easy.
ID has .. for digital code, language and information. Evo has none.
ID has... similarity in the fossil record and genome, Evo also does.

How does evo test common descent? looks at the fossil records and sees similarity. I guess its true. We see minor changes within a species so its obvious dogs can turn into cats given enough time. "Hopeful Guess"

Let's redefine macro-evolution to include speciation, then we can prove it happens. Well, let see, speciation can occur according to the definition, when an population becomes reproductively isolated. In some cases that just means some fish may prefer deeper water and others shallow. The difinition states they have speciated and are proof of macro-evolution.

Mean while, no one can get a bacteria bast a couple steps of mutation. No one can thousands of years of fruitflies to do anything. They finally produced a speciation event only to be overturned later.

You whine and cry about ID scientists not meating the benchmark while ignoring gaping holes in your own philosophical beliefs (Godless existance).

The bible has a word for that. "You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." Of course it has nothing to do with evolution, but the principal is the same.

It is your faith in no God, that drives you and that is why you attack anything ID. You have to, because your not going to change you mind on God, so how can you accept anything ID. You can't.

Society understans this and that is why evolution is so low on the belief scale. Because it too, is a belief, not a science.

Everyone knows, changes occur in species and living things adapt to their environment. They have know that long before Darwin. The only thing evolution has to offer is a way to dismiss God. To take him out of the picture. This is why true evolution appeals so much to the atheist. This is why you fight so hard and hang on so tight to the scraps of evidence that seem to support your belief.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You are hi-larry-ous. Actually hiding a parret judge. He just read what the NCSE wrote for him.

The Arrogant Consensus​

Dr. Hannes Alfvèn Founder Of Field in Physics“In 1942 he predicted that magnetic field lines in a plasma, like stretched rubber bands, could transmit a wave. At first this idea was ridiculed, but such phenomena were eventually observed and came to be known as Alfven waves.” “He was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals,” Dr. Dessler said, and he was continually disputed by other specialists in his field of research.” (New York Times)

Louis Pasteur Shunned by Scientists (Sure, faith is a science stopper)
"first to describe the scientific basis of fermentation. Shunned by doctors and fellow scientists,..Pasteur discovered that weakened forms of microbes could be used as an immunization against more virulent forms of microbes. As a pioneer of immunology,..

Pasteur lived at a time when thousands of people died each year of rabies. He spent years working on a vaccine. Just as he was about to experiment on himself, a nine-year-old boy, Joseph Meister, was bitten by a rabid dog. The boy's mother begged Pasteur to experiment on her son. Pasteur injected the boy for 10 days -- and the boy lived. Decades later, of all things Pasteur could have etched on his tombstone, he asked for 3 words, "Joseph Meister lived." Pasteur believed our greatest legacy to be those who live eternally because of our effort.

Pasteur also discovered the parasite responsible for killing silkworms, and saved the French silk industry by recommending that all infected worms and mulberries be destroyed...

Rather than destroying his belief in God, Pasteur's brilliant discoveries made him humble as he contemplated the marvels of divine creation. He argued that the notion of spontaneous generation (like materialism) threatens the very concept of God the Creator."

Vindicated: Ridiculed Israeli chemist wins Nobel
"When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.
After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry."

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
"Chandra originated Black Hole theory and published several papers. He was attacked viciously by his close colleague Sir Arthur Eddington, and his theory was discredited in the eyes of the research community. They were wrong, and Eddington apparently took such strong action based on an incorrect pet theory of his own. In the end Chandra could not even pursue a career in England, and he moved his research to the U. of Chicago in 1937, laboring in relative obscurity for decades. Others rediscovered Black Hole theory thirty years later. He won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics"

C.J. Doppler
"Proposed a theory of the optical Doppler Effect in 1842, but was bitterly opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the accepted physics of the time (it contradicted the Luminiferous Aether theory.)"

Ignaz Semmelweis ("savior of mothers")
"Semmelweis brought the medical community the idea that they were killing large numbers of new mothers by working with festering wounds in surgery, then immediately assisting with births without even washing hands. Such a truth was far too shameful for a community of experts to accept, so he was ignored. Semmelweis finally ended up in a mental hospital, and his ideas caught fire after he had died."

The ancient Jews knew about higene from the books of Moses. Loaded with how to deal with sores, blood, and fluids.

As I see it, INTELLIGENT DESIGN is in good company. The arrogance of science is an old one.

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift ​

Science is often a battlefield.

This is a fine example of drawing a flawed conclusion based on the data.

Think of it as a syllogism:

1. Many great ideas were initially reviled by the establishment and were later proven to be true

2. This idea is reviled by the establishment

3. ERGO: This idea will likely be proven true

It doesn't follow. Should we assume the TimeCube guy is "onto something" because almost no one thinks he's sane or rational? Probably not.

Intelligent Design is an almost purely unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The IDist usually relies on a couple of tools:

1. The appearance of design
2. The statistical likelihood of a structure arising from random chance.

The first can be thought of as putting the cart before the horse. Remember a creature will only thrive in an environment where it can thrive. It will die in an environment which would kill it. Ergo if an organism adapts to survive in a given environment it will end up looking like it was "designed" for that environment. Kind of like a puddle of water in the ground. Was the hole made to fit the shape of the water or vice versa?

The second is nice, but not how evolution works. Perhaps when discussing the origins of life one can deal in more "random" statistics, but then when the origins are discussed chemically statistical factors come into play anyway. We use stochastic explanations for many things in chemistry. Reactions not the least of them!

Evolution tends to bias the outcome, meaning that adaptations are hardly all just random changes.

Science is self-correcting. Why? Because the ideas that work work.

It's sad that some great scientists didn't get their just desserts at the time they came up with the idea. But great ideas should be trialed by fire. They can't be shouted onto the stage and even "black holes" cannot be legislated into acceptance by the scientists.

Human endeavors are what they are because we fight for our understanding.

And yes there are people who will not accept a new idea no matter what. It is true in all walks of life. Even good ideas!

So you and yours keep working on intelligent design and developing the hypothesis. Who knows....maybe someday someone will provide sufficient evidence for God that "ID" becomes common sense.

But just don't assume it will get traction because you can find examples where good ideas were overlooked in the past. Remember that people have been trying to "find" this "Intelligent Designer" for millenia. And we've got about 15 zillion different versions of him/her/it. And none of them are sufficient to displace the others using evidence.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Logic is all evolution has. It can't be tested, can't be observed, never has, can be reproduced in a lab. It is a guess based on similarity. Some believe you can test for intelligence. You don't agree with that. That is fine. Many didn't agree with the scientists above.

True, but the theory of evolution also makes predictions, which are testable and observable, and, by and large, they've proven correct.

My arguments for ID are not about evolutions gaping holes. They are just mentioned as to it's inatequacy as an explanation for anything.

ID has better a explanation for origins, Evo has none, so thats easy.
ID has .. for digital code, language and information. Evo has none.
ID has... similarity in the fossil record and genome, Evo also does.

All of which consist of Goddidit, a non-testable hypothesis.

How does evo test common descent? looks at the fossil records and sees similarity.

And living organisms and genomes and many other things. I'll leave the specifics to the biologists.

We see minor changes within a species so its obvious dogs can turn into cats given enough time.

Show me one place where evolution has predicted that dogs can evolve into cats.

Let's redefine macro-evolution to include speciation, then we can prove it happens. Well, let see, speciation can occur according to the definition, when an population becomes reproductively isolated. In some cases that just means some fish may prefer deeper water and others shallow. The difinition states they have speciated and are proof of macro-evolution.

They might qualify as a subspecies in that case, but in order to become a separate species, it has to be shown that the two species cannot produce viable offspring.

You whine and cry about ID scientists not meating the benchmark while ignoring gaping holes in your own philosophical beliefs (Godless existance).

You should be careful about who you call Godless.

The bible has a word for that. "You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." Of course it has nothing to do with evolution, but the principal is the same.

And it could apply just as equally to you.

It is your faith in no God, that drives you and that is why you attack anything ID. You have to, because your not going to change you mind on God, so how can you accept anything ID. You can't.

Again, I do, in fact, believe in God. I kindly ask you to stop stating otherwise.

Everyone knows, changes occur in species and living things adapt to their environment. They have know that long before Darwin. The only thing evolution has to offer is a way to dismiss God. To take him out of the picture. This is why true evolution appeals so much to the atheist. This is why you fight so hard and hang on so tight to the scraps of evidence that seem to support your belief.

It has nothing to do with atheism, at least not for me. I simply see evolution as a way of better understanding the world. "Goddidit" is not enough for me - I want to know how.

 

[idscience]

Interesting but not surprising that so many here chose to overlook the point. The arrogance is accepted even celebrated as science working as it should. What a twisted view and tell tail sign of how the evolutionary process is allowed to work.