What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[Athrond]

that will be difficult Paul, because none here present did the actual research on the things claimed to be irreducible complex.

Why would soemthing designed by an almighty being BE irreducible complex at all?

 

[Hespera]

Hmm interesting so your saying if a white person does not which to reproduce with a black person a form of speciation has occurred?


The only reason I put the dog example in the questions above was to point out if we were being intellectually honest we would group and sort them and postulate common ancestry from them.




A mudskipper for example.




So I will ask you again from a skeleton alone at what point do you classify it as a fish?


Sorry I don’t know what you mean?



It is just a hypothetical question can you use your imagination? The point of the question is for you to admit (or not to admit) if you were intellectually honest you would group and sort them and postulate common ancestry from them.



See above.

Well the quick answer would be we have classified animals by certain characteristics and to be placed in the mammal group you must have three ear bones?

I cannot answer why a designer used design A for mammals and design B for reptiles. How does this falsify I.D?

Also please explain what benefit non-mammals would have from the three-bone middle ear design as opposed to the design they have?



I would like to keep this debate focused on one item if you don’t mind as it is difficult to keep up with all the noise.


Without posting a link to a biased source can someone please falsify irreducible complexity? I would like to debate with some one not post links one to another from biased sources.

Kind regards,

Paul

Human races could be called separate species if you felt like it. Or separate subspecies. There is nothing much in the name. Why? Do you know what the word "species" means?

All known mammals have two three ear bones. And two occipital condyles, for that matter.
What is your reason for this question? It isnt a matter of reptiles "benefitting" by the way, but that a bone use for jaw articularion in reptiles is used for an ear bone in mammals.

Did you have a point about musckippers, other than that they show how fish can in fact get out of the water amd move about? Of course, ancestors of the amphibians were better suited to the transition, and the land didnt have any competition to offer the way it does now.

A fish is identified by a combination of characteristics. Some of them, skeletal and soft anatomy, are unique to the fish OF TODAY. Some fossil forms are neither fish nor amphibian as we know then today.
Not entirely what you mean, "at what point do you cclassify it as a fish?"
At what single feature? What combination of features? At what point in time?

Once again i have to say there is no absolute bright line distinction between a "fish" and something that is less like a fish and something still less like a fish. Its like asking at what EXACT POINT did it go from cold to hot.

Why is this important to you, to say exactly when something is or isnt a fish?

I agree with not posting links unless asked to. Dueling links is dumb.

You might like to define what you mean by irredicble complexity, before someone sets out to falsify it.

Any example you could find of 'irreducible com0plexity" being a way to falsify evolution can be subjected to the falsification process.

So far, none of them have stood the test.

Why dont you present an example that you think cant be falsified?


ps... dog skeletons. Any body with a little training could identify nearly any bone from a dog skeleton as being from a canine. If very different looking canines naturally occurred in widely different ages, of course they would be different species.

IF you could pull of a hoax, and plant skeletons somehow, it probalby would fool someone for a while. But you cant, so the whole thing is pretty pointless.

If I could make a huge voice come out of the sky, and trumpets and stuff, would you think it was god or would you say this is hyupothetical nonsese for me to ask about it.

 

[Skaloop]

Hmm interesting so your saying if a white person does not which to reproduce with a black person a form of speciation has occurred?

No. But if all white people refused to reproduce with any black person (and vice versa), that could be the start of the speciation process, as they would then evolve along different paths.

Well the quick answer would be we have classified animals by certain characteristics and to be placed in the mammal group you must have three ear bones?

Sort of. There are a variety of things that are required to be classified as a mammal. Mammals would still be mammals through, for example, fur and lactation, regarless of whether three middle-ear bones was shared with birds or reptiles or fish. They are common to all mammals, but not shared by any other class. It's indicative of a common ancestor for all mammals.

I cannot answer why a designer used design A for mammals and design B for reptiles. How does this falsify I.D?

Because common traits that transcend cladistic boundaries is not only entirely possible for a designer, it is practically expected. I don't claim that it falsifies ID, just that it is strong evidence against ID (and in favour of evolution).

Also please explain what benefit non-mammals would have from the three-bone middle ear design as opposed to the design they have?

Maybe none. That's not the point. You brought up design as being designed for a specific habitat. If mammals and reptiles are both designed for the same habitat (which they would be, since many of both do both live in the same habitat), then if it serves mammals well, it would also serve reptiles well. If the reptile structure is better, it would be better in mammals, too. Reptiles and mammals share many other features, such as backbones, kidneys, , etc. Then there are some traits that some reptiles and mammals have, but not all. Like quadripedal limbs or four-chambered hearts or teeth. Then there are traits that are exclusive to each group, like those mentioned earlier. There's no reason that a designer could not use any or all traits across any or all groups.

There's no reason that a penguin, which is medium sized flightless and spends much of its time in the antarctic waters, should share an ear design with a tiny hummingbird that spends it's time buzzing from flower to flower and with a huge ostrich that lives in the African Savannah. But not share a design with a sea otter, which is also small and flightless and spends much of its time in cold water.

Or why a bat ear is more like that of a blue whale than a crow.

A designer (especially a perfect designer) would use designs to best suit the organism, regardless of how we classify it.

The twin-nested hierarchy (which is the overall idea we are discussing here) is predicted by evolution. It shows up nowhere in designed groups.

 

[Hespera]

No. But if all white people refused to reproduce with any black person (and vice versa), that could be the start of the speciation process, as they would then evolve along different paths.



Sort of. There are a variety of things that are required to be classified as a mammal. Mammals would still be mammals through, for example, fur and lactation, regarless of whether three middle-ear bones was shared with birds or reptiles or fish. They are common to all mammals, but not shared by any other class. It's indicative of a common ancestor for all mammals.



Because common traits that transcend cladistic boundaries is not only entirely possible for a designer, it is practically expected. I don't claim that it falsifies ID, just that it is strong evidence against ID (and in favour of evolution).



Maybe none. That's not the point. You brought up design as being designed for a specific habitat. If mammals and reptiles are both designed for the same habitat (which they would be, since many of both do both live in the same habitat), then if it serves mammals well, it would also serve reptiles well. If the reptile structure is better, it would be better in mammals, too. Reptiles and mammals share many other features, such as backbones, kidneys, , etc. Then there are some traits that some reptiles and mammals have, but not all. Like quadripedal limbs or four-chambered hearts or teeth. Then there are traits that are exclusive to each group, like those mentioned earlier. There's no reason that a designer could not use any or all traits across any or all groups.

There's no reason that a penguin, which is medium sized flightless and spends much of its time in the antarctic waters, should share an ear design with a tiny hummingbird that spends it's time buzzing from flower to flower and with a huge ostrich that lives in the African Savannah. But not share a design with a sea otter, which is also small and flightless and spends much of its time in cold water.

Or why a bat ear is more like that of a blue whale than a crow.

A designer (especially a perfect designer) would use designs to best suit the organism, regardless of how we classify it.

The twin-nested hierarchy (which is the overall idea we are discussing here) is predicted by evolution. It shows up nowhere in designed groups.

Id like to know why if we are designed from the ground up by someone who cares about us, WHY did the octopus get a better eye design??

What dope of an engineer would come up with changing the shape of the lens as a way to focus, instead of moving a rigid lens back and forth?

 

[JBJoe]

Well the quick answer would be we have classified animals by certain characteristics and to be placed in the mammal group you must have three ear bones?

I cannot answer why a designer used design A for mammals and design B for reptiles. How does this falsify I.D?

Also please explain what benefit non-mammals would have from the three-bone middle ear design as opposed to the design they have?



I would like to keep this debate focused on one item if you don’t mind as it is difficult to keep up with all the noise.


Without posting a link to a biased source can someone please falsify irreducible complexity? I would like to debate with some one not post links one to another from biased sources.

Kind regards,

Paul

The fact that one could not falsify ID is exactly the problem with it.

The issue with the mammalian ear bones is one of CONVERGENCE, a prediction from the link you offered that simply doesn't pan out.

Don't you think it odd that every creature with 3 ear bones also has sweat glands, including specialized sweat glands (mammary glands) for feeding young, hair and a neocortex in the brain with no exceptions? Why don't we find mammal-like creatures with bird-like hearing structures or bird-like creatures with mammal-like hearing structures?

Isn't it odd the only animals which have a placenta also have 3 ear bones, sweat glands, mammary glands, hair and a neocortex? Not every mammal has a placenta, but every placental is a member of the mammal class. Why is there no convergence of these features across classes? Why don't we find placental birds?

This is the same issue with flying as mentioned earlier. We see flying across classes, but in all cases the mechanics are different. No bats have feathers and no birds use webbed wings. All bats are mammals and have 3 ear bones, sweat glands, mammary glands, hair and a neocortex but no bird has any of these.

Evolution gives us a reason why. ID gives us "you can't tell why a designer did it that way."

 

[savedbyjesus]

Human races could be called separate species if you felt like it. Or separate subspecies. There is nothing much in the name. Why? Do you know what the word "species" means?

So species is just a man made classificaion.

All known mammals have two three ear bones. And two occipital condyles, for that matter.
What is your reason for this question? It isnt a matter of reptiles "benefitting" by the way, but that a bone use for jaw articularion in reptiles is used for an ear bone in mammals.

Please keep up with the thread I was asked the question and responded.

Did you have a point about musckippers, other than that they show how fish can in fact get out of the water amd move about? Of course, ancestors of the amphibians were better suited to the transition, and the land didnt have any competition to offer the way it does now.

Again please keep up you asked me the question.

A fish is identified by a combination of characteristics. Some of them, skeletal and soft anatomy, are unique to the fish OF TODAY. Some fossil forms are neither fish nor amphibian as we know then today.
Not entirely what you mean, "at what point do you cclassify it as a fish?"
At what single feature? What combination of features? At what point in time?

Well to quote you “1. No, not at all. The skeletons are highly diagnostic, you dont need the soft parts to tell you what something is.”

So please stop avoiding the question with word salad. From a skeleton alone tell me when you would classify it as a fish?

Once again i have to say there is no absolute bright line distinction between a "fish" and something that is less like a fish and something still less like a fish. Its like asking at what EXACT POINT did it go from cold to hot.

It is not the same in the slightest.

Why is this important to you, to say exactly when something is or isnt a fish?

To disprove evolution by natural selection.

I agree with not posting links unless asked to. Dueling links is dumb.

You might like to define what you mean by irredicble complexity, before someone sets out to falsify it.

Any example you could find of 'irreducible com0plexity" being a way to falsify evolution can be subjected to the falsification process.

So far, none of them have stood the test.

Why dont you present an example that you think cant be falsified?


ps... dog skeletons. Any body with a little training could identify nearly any bone from a dog skeleton as being from a canine. If very different looking canines naturally occurred in widely different ages, of course they would be different species.

IF you could pull of a hoax, and plant skeletons somehow, it probalby would fool someone for a while. But you cant, so the whole thing is pretty pointless.

If I could make a huge voice come out of the sky, and trumpets and stuff, would you think it was god or would you say this is hyupothetical nonsese for me to ask about it.

Right, you completely missed the point with the dog skeletons so please forget it.



I would like you to falsify the irreducible complexity of hair.


I predict if you take away any system in the chain such as dermal papilla, the sebaceous gland or arrector pili you have no hair.

It can be falsified by presenting a case that shows:

A: small incremental steps for each component that is beneficial and selectable by the standard model.


Kind regards,

[FONT=&quot]Paul[/FONT]

 

[savedbyjesus]

Id like to know why if we are designed from the ground up by someone who cares about us, WHY did the octopus get a better eye design??

[FONT=&quot]Sorry I forgot you were the authority on what constitutes better design and you know everything there is to know about design and all from some random mutations inside your head [/FONT]

What dope of an engineer would come up with changing the shape of the lens as a way to focus, instead of moving a rigid lens back and forth?

Ok lets see you come up with something better made from tiny bags (please don't take this literal) of goo , grows, can heal itself, clean itself
etc...


Kind regards,

Paul

 

[savedbyjesus]

The fact that one could not falsify ID is exactly the problem with it.

The issue with the mammalian ear bones is one of CONVERGENCE, a prediction from the link you offered that simply doesn't pan out.

Don't you think it odd that every creature with 3 ear bones also has sweat glands, including specialized sweat glands (mammary glands) for feeding young, hair and a neocortex in the brain with no exceptions? Why don't we find mammal-like creatures with bird-like hearing structures or bird-like creatures with mammal-like hearing structures?

Because they were not designed that way? Not all cars have a V8 engine you know, does that mean if we find cars without V8's that they never had a designer.

Isn't it odd the only animals which have a placenta also have 3 ear bones, sweat glands, mammary glands, hair and a neocortex? Not every mammal has a placenta, but every placental is a member of the mammal class. Why is there no convergence of these features across classes? Why don't we find placental birds?

Because birds lay eggs?

This is the same issue with flying as mentioned earlier. We see flying across classes, but in all cases the mechanics are different. No bats have feathers and no birds use webbed wings. All bats are mammals and have 3 ear bones, sweat glands, mammary glands, hair and a neocortex but no bird has any of these.

Does every architect design every house the same? Can we fly by rockets, areoplanes and helecopters, does this mean they have no designers?

Evolution gives us a reason why. ID gives us "you can't tell why a designer did it that way."

Evolution claims no such thing it is blind.

Please show me empirical evidence of evolution by natural selection of kingdom changes without postulating from variation?

Kind regards,

Paul

 

[Hespera]

Well someone else can play snark wars with savedby on this.

 

[gaara4158]

Well someone else can play snark wars with savedby on this.

For the record, you were handling it well. He just doesn't recognize any answer other than, "You're right, sbj, and i'm wrong."

 

[savedbyjesus]

Sad, no quotes to find on google so debate stops, shame.

My challenge is still there please falsify it?

Kind regards,

Paul

 

[Hespera]

For the record, you were handling it well. He just doesn't recognize any answer other than, "You're right, sbj, and i'm wrong."

Well, thanks. i can handle debate fine, I just dont want to get involved in the ad hom and snark stuff. That isnt debate.

 

[JBJoe]

Because they were not designed that way? Not all cars have a V8 engine you know, does that mean if we find cars without V8's that they never had a designer.

Even cars without a V8 have CD players, though presumably the V8/Straight 6 split happened long before the CD player. Given the identical nature of the CD player in each case and the fact that they occurred simultaneous, we may conclude that either a fantastically unlikely evolutionary leap happened in both, or they were designed.

Because birds lay eggs?

So you admit that the convergence prediction is wrong?

Does every architect design every house the same? Can we fly by rockets, areoplanes and helecopters, does this mean they have no designers?

Houses, helicopter, airplanes, etc.. All show convergent traits. Nearly all forms of houses have some species with central heat and air and that trait sprung up at nearly same time across all "house species." But we don't see this in animals which we believe evolved.

Evolution claims no such thing it is blind.

I don't think that made any sense.

Please show me empirical evidence of evolution by natural selection of kingdom changes without postulating from variation?

So, you are trying to derail the thread now? The topic is "What predictions does Intelligent Design make?"

One of those offered in a link you provided was "convergence." I think we all agree, if there is an intelligent designer, you should see convergence across many orders and families. The problem is we don't.

If we do not see a reasonable convergence among living things, then the claim that life was intelligently designed is significantly weakened.

 

[atomweaver]

So by that logic I would say if we have that much trouble defining creatures we have full access to how much more difficult trying to form relationships from bones alone?

Wait, aren't you in support of the position from the link you provided? You know, the one that says that fossils alone are sufficient to determine the total amount of 'novel information' an extinct species has? If they are capable of that, then they should be sufficient to ascertain a subset of 'novel information' as simple as whether or not two example fossils could successfully raise offspring, right? Or, does procreation not fall under the purview of 'novel information'?

Also if we based modern species on skeletons alone it would seriously reduce the number of species none to us.

Do you think if we took all modern dogs known to us and buried the skeletons in different strata and then dug them up we would say they were the same species and able to interbreed?

According to your link, using the ID hypothesis, you should be able to not only answer the very question you ask above (species identification and interbreeding capability must be accounted for in quantifying the novel information content of each creature, yes?) but you should also be able to quantify the difference in the total 'novel information' content between any two dog skeletons you dug up.
It seems ID claims to be able to discern a vastly greater scope of properties from fossil records than simple interbreeding...

New example; Please quantify for me the novel information content of the skeletons of a typical chihuahua and great dane. If you cannot, then please link me to articles or resources that show how such a quantification is accomplished under ID hypothesis, and I'll be happy to do the actual work myself.

A prediction; you won't be able to find any such method, and you won't be able to find a single calculation of 'novel infrmation content', because no IDist can be bothered to try to collect an ounce of positive evidence in support of their curious notions. They're all too busy trying to short-circuit the process of theory development, and instead seek to have their notions legislated into school curricula, all while making a tidy profit off of the Creationist flock, of course...

 

[ragarth]

My challenge is still there please falsify it?

Paul

This is hypothetical, science doesn't claim to know everything yet and accepts the gaps in it's knowledge as challenges to answer. But, I'll give this my best shot. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and want to take my research in a totally new direction, so you'll have to deal with existing knowledge off the internet, specifically this link:

http://www.eurekah.com/chapter/595


This is a summary of an article detailing the potential venues of hair evolution and it's relationship to feathers and scales. My understanding of this is that it's likely scales came before hair or feathers, which makes sense since mammals and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles. Hair itself potentially evolved as sensory organs between the scales on early reptiles, and hence I'd imagine it's possible that hair evolved from reptilian scales. The abstract mentions the scale-like protrusions on rat tails and the hair follicles between them as an example of the relationship between hair and scales. Further, it's generally accepted in the evobio community that feathers evolved from scales, and since feathers and hair share several similarities, it's reasonable to assume the evolution of hair from scales as well.

If you're interested in the genetic aspect of the evolution, this article provides lots of juicy detail about the complications in deriving the evolution of feathers and the chemical and genetic differences between scales and feathers:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119223021/PDFSTART

I personally haven't finished reading it, just do me a favor and don't quote mine the sucker, this is a highly technical document looking *for* differentiation between scales and feathers, but it's still presumed that feathers evolved from scales.

 

[Skaloop]

Please show me empirical evidence of evolution by natural selection of kingdom changes without postulating from variation?

No. You know what? Why don't you prove evolution wrong. You can't. It's been 150 years. Countless people have tried to refute evolution. Yet nobody has. Ever. Darwin's theory predicted things that were unknown to him. Evolution fits with every biological finding. There is no other legitimate explanation for the biological sciences. Nobody uses ID for anything but making money off of suckers like you. Face it. Evolution is undeniable. Unless you are ignorant, stupid, or insane. I figure you are the first. So rid yourself of your ignorance and learn something. Because if you don't, you will be wrong all of your life.

 

[Danyc]

I'm with Skaloop; I'm sick and tired of hearing "Show us the evidence!!11"

It's been 150 years since the idea was proposed, and its first criticizers were other scientists.
Since then so many tests have been done, so much research has been made, so much peer-reviewed literature has been written...Evolution was deemed practically undeniable as a fact long ago.

And some still have the gall to say it is not right. They say: "The problem is soooo obvious, I can't believe you didn't see it."

Yeah, I can't believe it either. Or rather, I don't. You think that you are so smart that you just have this 'sight' or extra power of reasoning and deduction that hundreds of thousands of other people over the span of 150 YEARS did not have?

The mere statement that the problem with evolution is so "obvious" is a refutation unto itself.


Sorry for ranting.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Ok lets see you come up with something better made from tiny bags (please don't take this literal) of goo , grows, can heal itself, clean itself
etc...

...is easily damaged, on its own is near impossible to repair, needs constant lubrication and feeding, doesn't see more than a smidge of the light spectrum, doesn't work at night or underwater....etcetcetcetc....any 20$ camera (created by man) works much better, lasts a heck of a lot longer, and comes with a warranty.



If "intelligent design" is so intelligent, why have 99.99% of all living things ever "created" gone extinct?



Funny, that doesn't sound very intelligent.

*

 

[savedbyjesus]

This is hypothetical, science doesn't claim to know everything yet and accepts the gaps in it's knowledge as challenges to answer. But, I'll give this my best shot. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and want to take my research in a totally new direction, so you'll have to deal with existing knowledge off the internet, specifically this link:

eurekah.com/chapter/595


This is a summary of an article detailing the potential venues of hair evolution and it's relationship to feathers and scales. My understanding of this is that it's likely scales came before hair or feathers, which makes sense since mammals and dinosaurs evolved from reptiles. Hair itself potentially evolved as sensory organs between the scales on early reptiles, and hence I'd imagine it's possible that hair evolved from reptilian scales. The abstract mentions the scale-like protrusions on rat tails and the hair follicles between them as an example of the relationship between hair and scales. Further, it's generally accepted in the evobio community that feathers evolved from scales, and since feathers and hair share several similarities, it's reasonable to assume the evolution of hair from scales as well.

If you're interested in the genetic aspect of the evolution, this article provides lots of juicy detail about the complications in deriving the evolution of feathers and the chemical and genetic differences between scales and feathers:

.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119223021/PDFSTART

I personally haven't finished reading it, just do me a favor and don't quote mine the sucker, this is a highly technical document looking *for* differentiation between scales and feathers, but it's still presumed that feathers evolved from scales.

Thank you for trying to at least address the problem.

This is my area of research and I will debate this all my life or until it is throughly falsified.

It has become clear that there is no one here to actually debate this with so I will vacate.

I wish you all the best in your future study/work.

Kind regards,

Paul

 

[ragarth]

Thank you for trying to at least address the problem.

This is my area of research and I will debate this all my life or until it is throughly falsified.

It has become clear that there is no one here to actually debate this with so I will vacate.

I wish you all the best in your future study/work.

Kind regards,

Paul

Good luck on your research, I have the highest regards for people in the scientific fields. If I may ask, what's your field of study and what is your research goal?