proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Are you some kind of russian troll bot whose sole purpose is to annoy people with stupid arguments?
Because if that's the case then it's definitely working!

Being a bot would make a lot of sense, given his continued inability to understand the difference between living and non-living things.

 

[ruthiesea]

We don't need it because it is irrelevant to the things you mentioned. Common design works just as well. I'm advocating we don't need evolution from a common ancestor to further scientific inquiry.

We can say there is a common design in life and it works just as well. Because we can use that common design to make all the discoveries we want. And creation works just as well for the biodeversity because the Bible tells us God created with great biodeversity in the beginning.

The idea of common design, such as ID, is scientifically useless. It cannot be used for further research, it does not lead to further paths of research, it does not lead to increasing our knowledge, it is not based on observation of empirical evidence and deductive reasoning, it does not in any way explain what has been found, it does not in any way invalidate evolution, and, most importantly, it makes no testable predictions of what will be found in the future. In other words, it has none of the attributes of a valid scientific theory. Yes, common design works just as well, but so does aliens breeding us as slave labour, for which there is also no evidence.

Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research? A conspiracy must have a goal. What is the goal of a conspiracy of evolutionary science?

 

[xianghua]

The idea of common design, such as ID, is scientifically useless.

actually evolution is scientifically useless, since we dont need to involve evolution to produce medicines. scientists will still be able to produce medicines without evolution at all. they just need their...intelligent design.

, it does not in any way explain what has been found, it does not in any way invalidate evolution

actually only id can explain the existance of motors like the atp synthase or flagellum or any other complex system we found in nature. evolution cant:

(image from Molecular motors: What makes ATP synthase spin?)

Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research? A conspiracy must have a goal. What is the goal of a conspiracy of evolutionary science?

see those cases:

Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change


Biologist: I Lost My Job Because I Don't Believe in Evolution


University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter

i dont think that it's a conspiracy, but im sure that something wrong is going here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ah yes we do have DNA. Evidence of common design.

I can make watches out of wood, iron, or even gold. As a designer, I am not limited to making all of the things I design out of the same material. Other designers also wouldn't be limited to avoiding using the same materials as myself. Thus, shared basic materials between designed objects would NOT be evidence for a common designer (and that's even assuming that the items in question are designed to begin with).

Bacteria are not human. Neither are chimpanzies. We are different from beetles and spiders. I always have to specify completely different cause if I don't evolutionists always say things like "what about this kind of beetle, it changed into the color of beetle".

In your first part of this post, you said "ah yes, we have DNA". You admitted that humans and bacteria are not completely different, because of this shared quality. On a genetic scale, humans are far more similar to chimps than not.

I mean show me a beetle that changes into something that is not a beetle. That's completely different.

-_- we are the ones that define what a beetle is to begin with. Why demonstrate a transition between labels that have always been arbitrary? Also, you have no consistency in your demands whatsoever. First, you demand "bacteria becoming "not bacteria"", which would be a domain level transition, and now you demand "beetles becoming "not beetles"", which is an order level transition.

Also, I have already stated that nothing in evolution becomes completely different. Traits are always retained to some extent. Depending on the gene, a single base pair changing can affect physiology more than an entire gene being removed. Physiology can change entirely through minor DNA changes... or remain relatively the same despite many more changes. So, what are you asking for, really?

 

[pitabread]

Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research?

In my experience, this is a huge blind spot for creationists. When it comes to applied evolution, they tend to either ignore it outright, deny it, or occasionally engage in mental gymnastics to argue that applied evolution isn't really applied evolution.

(The latter usually comes up in discussions of phylogenetics whereby creationists start insisting that phylogenies actually represent "common design", not common ancestry. It's an argument that makes zero sense on the face of it, but they keep trying nonetheless.)

I think given the creationist position of denying the scientific validity of evolutionary biology, they've painted themselves into an uncomfortable corner when it comes to applied evolution. If they admit that evolution really is an applied science, they open to the door to accepting its validity. And since they don't want to admit to that, it's easier to just ignore or deny it.

However, given how relatively easy it is to find examples of applied evolution for anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject and access to Google Scholar, creationists aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

 

[PsychoSarah]

actually evolution is scientifically useless, since we dont need to involve evolution to produce medicines.

-_- as if every useful thing contributes to medicine, and we have had this conversation. Flu vaccines require knowledge of evolutionary patterns in viruses to produce.

 

[ruthiesea]

actually evolution is scientifically useless, since we dont need to involve evolution to produce medicines. scientists will still be able to produce medicines without evolution at all. they just need their...intelligent design.

Evolution has led to many discoveries and new knowledge, has led to new paths of research, and it makes testable predictions as to what will be discovered in the future. These are some of the attributes of a valid scientific theory. ID, on the other hand, has led to no discoveries or added to our knowledge, suggests no other paths of research, and it's proponents attempt to prove it, a sure sign of a pseudoscience, while science attempts to invalidate theories.

ID is based on the belief that Genesis is historically and scientifically valid, a belief not shared by my religion. Only someone who believes that Genesis is to be taken literally can reach a conclusion of ID. So, it is a preconception, not a conclusion reached through the scientific method. It is totally based on religious beliefs, which are not shared by all.

Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research? A conspiracy must have a goal. What is the goal of a conspiracy of evolutionary science?

 

[xianghua]

Evolution has led to many discoveries and new knowledge,has led to new paths of research, and it makes testable predictions as to what will be discovered in the future.

such as what exactly?

ID is based on the belief that Genesis is historically and scientifically valid,

no. dont be confuse with creationism. according to id the earth can be indeed 4.5 billion years old. id just say that nature is best explain by design rather then a natural process.

It is totally based on religious beliefs, which are not shared by all.

again: no. id is base on scientific evidence as i showed before.

Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research? A conspiracy must have a goal. What is the goal of a conspiracy of evolutionary science?

you probably missed this:

Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change

Biologist: I Lost My Job Because I Don't Believe in Evolution

University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter

do you think its ok?

 

[pitabread]

nm.

 

[BradB]

The idea of common design, such as ID, is scientifically useless.

I think you are flat wrong friend and here's why. In cosmology and physics ID encourages scientists to investigate and discover more instances of fine-tuning of the laws of physics and properties of our universe that uniquely allow for the existence of advanced forms of life. In biochemistry ID explains and predicts the presence of high levels of complex and specified information in proteins and DNA. In Genetics ID predicts and explains function for so-called "junk" DNA while neo-Darwinism stifles such research. In paleontology ID's prediction of irreducibly complexity in biological systems explains paleontological patterns such as the abrupt appearance of biological life forms, punctuated change, and stasis throughout the history of life. In systematics ID explains why there are similarities between living species, including examples of extreme genetic "convergence" that severely conflict with conventional evolutionary phylogenies. ID encourages scientists to understand where intelligent causes are superior to natural causes in producing certain types of information in the field of information theory. In cellular biology ID explains why the cell resembles "designed structures" rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution, allowing scientists to better understand the workings of molecular machines. In the field of bioinformatics ID explains the presence of new layers of information and functional language embedded in the genetic codes, as well as other codes within biology. In the field of systems biology ID encourages biologists to look at various biological systems as integrated components of larger systems that are designed to work together in a top-down, coordinated fashion, which is what biologists are finding to be the cases. And in general biology ID predicts function for allegedly "vestigial" organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions in this area.

 

[USincognito]

so you agree that those stalactites are young according to those calculations?

So's law.

No, I don't agree.

 

[USincognito]

the Common ancestor is the creator....He used the same module to create them all...
he used the same formula and apparatus...you claim the earth is billion years old but you don't known where the materials came from..and you don't take into consideration how old the materials were before it was used

Why did the "common designer"...
- give humans and chimpanzees the same 203,000 endogenous retroviruses
- give all Haplorhine primates including humans a broken GULO (vitamin C production) gene
- give whales a broken Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development
- give all therian mammals broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development

 

[USincognito]

And in general biology ID predicts function for allegedly "vestigial" organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions in this area.

That never happened. From the time they were formally proposed, vestigial has never meant useless. It has always meant reduced or changed from earlier form or function. That can result in a useless structure or gene, but it doesn't have to. Cetacean pelvises no longer serve as a socket for the hip joint, bu they have been coopted in some species to anchor larger reproductive organs is one example of repurposing. On the other hand, muscles to move ears or flare noses in primates (and humans especially) aren't really useful for anything other than entertainment.

And it goes beyond physical structures as I pointed out in the above post. There are many examples of molecular vestiges that simply are not explained by ID or common design, but are explained by common ancestry.
>> Why did the "common designer"...
- give humans and chimpanzees the same 203,000 endogenous retroviruses
- give all Haplorhine primates including humans a broken GULO (vitamin C production) gene
- give whales a broken Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway for hind limb development
- give all therian mammals broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development <<

 

[pitabread]

I think you are flat wrong friend and here's why. In cosmology and physics ID encourages scientists to investigate and discover more instances of fine-tuning of the laws of physics and properties of our universe that uniquely allow for the existence of advanced forms of life. In biochemistry ID explains and predicts the presence of high levels of complex and specified information in proteins and DNA. In Genetics ID predicts and explains function for so-called "junk" DNA while neo-Darwinism stifles such research. In paleontology ID's prediction of irreducibly complexity in biological systems explains paleontological patterns such as the abrupt appearance of biological life forms, punctuated change, and stasis throughout the history of life. In systematics ID explains why there are similarities between living species, including examples of extreme genetic "convergence" that severely conflict with conventional evolutionary phylogenies. ID encourages scientists to understand where intelligent causes are superior to natural causes in producing certain types of information in the field of information theory. In cellular biology ID explains why the cell resembles "designed structures" rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution, allowing scientists to better understand the workings of molecular machines. In the field of bioinformatics ID explains the presence of new layers of information and functional language embedded in the genetic codes, as well as other codes within biology. In the field of systems biology ID encourages biologists to look at various biological systems as integrated components of larger systems that are designed to work together in a top-down, coordinated fashion, which is what biologists are finding to be the cases. And in general biology ID predicts function for allegedly "vestigial" organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions in this area.

[citation needed]

(To be blunt, most of what you posted above isn't true. For example, concepts like "irreducibly complexity" and "complex and specified information" have never been broadly accepted in their respective fields and are generally considered failed hypotheses if not outright pseudoscience. Consequently, you won't find examples of them being applied the way you suggest.

And claiming that ID "encourages" scientists to do things is a bit of a stretch. For example, there is no scientific framework of ID under which physicists study the nature of the universe or biologists study living organisms. They just study it as a matter of course.)

In the field of bioinformatics ID explains the presence of new layers of information and functional language embedded in the genetic codes, as well as other codes within biology.

Out of curiosity, I looked at this claim a little closer. After searching a handful of bioinformatics journals for "intelligent design" the only mentions were either in a colloquial use of the phrase (i.e. nothing to do with the ID movement itself) or in one case, a passing reference to the evolution vs ID debate.

Same result when searching for other ID-related concepts like "complex specified information" and even ID authors like Dembski and Behe; there's nothing to be found.

There doesn't appear to be any real mention of anything to do with Intelligent Design in modern bioinformatics.

 

[USincognito]

Because if that's the case then it's definitely working!

I think it's time to make an addition to my ignore list.

 

[pitabread]

That never happened. From the time they were formally proposed, vestigial has never meant useless. It has always meant reduced or changed from earlier form or function.

I'd also like to point out that ID has never actually predicted the function of anything. These claims of ID "predicting" the function of vestigial organs is entirely a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[bhsmte]

actually evolution is scientifically useless, since we dont need to involve evolution to produce medicines. scientists will still be able to produce medicines without evolution at all. they just need their...intelligent design.





actually only id can explain the existance of motors like the atp synthase or flagellum or any other complex system we found in nature. evolution cant:

(image from Molecular motors: What makes ATP synthase spin?)




see those cases:

Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change


Biologist: I Lost My Job Because I Don't Believe in Evolution


University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter

i dont think that it's a conspiracy, but im sure that something wrong is going here.

This is so wrong, I have to call poe at this point.

 

[xianghua]

So's law.

No, I don't agree.

but this is what the calculation show us.

 

[xianghua]

That never happened. From the time they were formally proposed, vestigial has never meant useless.

are you sure? so what this suppose to be?:

Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones

"Due to their highly reduced state, cetacean pelvic bones are sometimes thought of as “useless vestiges” of their land-dwelling ancestry (Curtis and Barnes 1989)."

 

[Jimmy D]

are you sure? so what this suppose to be?:

Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones

"Due to their highly reduced state, cetacean pelvic bones are sometimes thought of as “useless vestiges” of their land-dwelling ancestry (Curtis and Barnes 1989)."

LOL. Did you read that paper? It's about the function of vestiges. Only a creationist could ignore 99.9% of a research article about the function of vestigial bones in dolphins to score a point about biologists thinking vestigial forms are useless!

If you had read it you might also have discovered that in some females the pelvic bones appear to Be useless. Some vestiges will have a function, some won’t, USincognito was merely pointing out that vestigial has never been defined as useless. Your paper refers only to the opinion on dolphin pelvic bones, not all vestigial forms, yet again, you’re wrong.

Edit: Apologies, phone posting leads to many typos.