What predictions does Intelligent Design make?

[Split Rock]

Like macroevolution, you mean?

Please define Macroevolution.

 

[LightHorseman]

Please define Macroevolution.

Fish evolving into cumquat bushes, just like in Darwin's Origin of Species

 

[shernren]

Please define Macroevolution.

evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

... Google's define: is about as objective as it gets.

 

[gaara4158]

Like macroevolution, you mean?

I swear if you wink one more time here I'll think you're flirting with me.

On a serious note, I thought we'd run you out of here. Why are you still making the same claims others and I utterly destroyed a few pages back?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Please define Macroevolution.

The scientific term referring to inter-species evolution (i.e., the genetic divergence between two taxa over time).

 

[Split Rock]

Please define Macroevolution.

evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

... Google's define: is about as objective as it gets.

The scientific term referring to inter-species evolution (i.e., the genetic divergence between two taxa over time).

Thanks guys, but I wanted yguy to answer the question, so we know what he thinks is macroevolution.

 

[Naraoia]

And of course I never said anything that contradicts that.

Except you've been contending for the last thousand pages that something that is true (or known to be true, not that that makes a difference) is not falsifiable. Falsifiability means the logical possibility of being proven wrong. So for all true statements to be unfalsifiable (you didn't distinguish between true and falsifiable, and true and unfalsifiable, things as far as I can remember), their negations must be logically impossible. Sorry, but that's equating truth and logical possibility.

No, I'm saying the fact of your existence as a baby in the 80's is just as true now as it was then.

You said that the truth of a statement doesn't change if you change the tense. As far as I can tell, that is only universally true if changing the tense doesn't make it a different statement. That means "I was a baby" and "I'm a baby" (or "it's [date x]" and "it was [date x]"] are equivalent statements. And that means contradictions.

And I'm done with this whole craziness about logic. You either can't express yourself clearly enough or just keep saying things and when called out on a mistake, going "oh, but I've never said otherwise!" Whether you're just dense, or dishonest, or a troll, I'm done with this.

A tape recording requires no interpretation, assuming its verbal content is the object of the inquiry. Experimental data and conclusions drawn from it do.

Ok, then. Which one do you trust more: an interpretation of the tape recording, or an interpretation of someone's memories?

This isn't about measurements, for crying out loud.

"Measurement" here being a general term for data collection.

Because any one that you don't read has the theoretical potential to contradict what you think you know.

Oh, sure. There's also the possibility that quantum physics is really deterministic. Luckily, I'm capable of accepting what seems most likely based on the information I have, and not worrying about the "might be" until it does come along. (Which is not to say I don't look for new information, before you "misunderstand" me again)

I don't need (the illusion of) absolute certainty to have a worldview. (If I did, I wouldn't be doing a science degree.)

Evidently you don't consider human beings a part of the living world, then, as our uniquely human attributes can hardly be accounted for by evolutionary theory.

Do elaborate. What are these uniquely human attributes, and why can't evolution explain them?

Not that I would expect to find any anti-evolutionary literature coming out of scientific bodies any more than I would expect anti global warming literature to show up at realclimate.org unless they think they can shoot it down.

I did link Behe and Snoke 2004, didn't I? It came out in a peer-reviewed journal, and I hear it's been touted as support for irreducible complexity.

Like macroevolution, you mean?

Wait, didn't you say you don't know a lot about the evidence and are not going into it? Then I highly suggest you don't land yourself in an argument about it. (Technically, my question was about common descent, but I don't suppose you mean "reproductive isolation" by macroevolution)

It's your prerogative, of course.

I swear if you wink one more time here I'll think you're flirting with me.

Will you play along? It would be so hilarious

 

[gaara4158]

Will you play along? It would be so hilarious

youd like that wouldnt you...

 

[Hespera]

Evidently you don't consider human beings a part of the living world, then, as our uniquely human attributes can hardly be accounted for by evolutionary theory.
​

Do elaborate. What are these uniquely human attributes, and why can't evolution explain them?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<QUOTE

This I do really have to hear, the human attributes that are unique and that cant be accounted for by evolution.

 

[Naraoia]

Evidently you don't consider human beings a part of the living world, then, as our uniquely human attributes can hardly be accounted for by evolutionary theory.
​

Do elaborate. What are these uniquely human attributes, and why can't evolution explain them?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<QUOTE

This I do really have to hear, the human attributes that are unique and that cant be accounted for by evolution.

I hope he doesn't say "soul"...

 

[yguy]

evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups

I can hang with everything but that last bit, which could include speciation, which occurence is uncontroversial. It has to be more of a shift than that for "macro" to have any meaning.

 

[yguy]

I swear if you wink one more time here I'll think you're flirting with me.

Actually you're two posts away from my ignore list, by my estimate.

claims others and I utterly destroyed a few pages back?

You're a bit old to believe in fairy tails.

 

[yguy]

And false statement =/= logical contradiction.

And of course I never said anything that contradicts that.

...Sorry, but that's equating truth and logical possibility.

That may be; but as you can see above, that's not what you started out saying. Honest debate rules out baiting and switching, in case you're not aware of it.

You said that the truth of a statement doesn't change if you change the tense. As far as I can tell, that is only universally true if changing the tense doesn't make it a different statement. That means "I was a baby" and "I'm a baby" (or "it's [date x]" and "it was [date x]"] are equivalent statements. And that means contradictions.

Of course it does, viewing the matter subjectively from a particular point in spacetime, because the tense expresses your position in it relative to the event; but of course your position in spacetime doesn't affect that event in the slightest.

Whether you're just dense, or dishonest, or a troll,

I'm none of those things. I'm just right about what I said.

Ok, then. Which one do you trust more: an interpretation of the tape recording, or an interpretation of someone's memories?

The question has no meaning without any idea of what truth is desired to be ascertained.

Oh, sure. There's also the possibility that quantum physics is really deterministic. Luckily, I'm capable of accepting what seems most likely

Based on what?

based on the information I have,

Which according to Einstein was less than one trillionth of one percent of anything. That included all human knowledge in his time.

and not worrying about the "might be" until it does come along.

What reason did Newton have to do otherwise when he observed the apple falling? Why ask why the moon doesn't fall when the question hadn't come along yet?

I don't need (the illusion of) absolute certainty

Which you admit you don't know is an illusion.

Do elaborate. What are these uniquely human attributes,

Self-awareness, the ability to ask why, and conscience - which is not, you may rest assured, socially inculcated.

and why can't evolution explain them?

1. If it could we'd see it in other species.

2. These attributes can be lost, or at least go dormant, in the space of a generation. It hardly makes sense that such a time intensive process would implode with such caprice.

 

[LightHorseman]

So... has yguy explained why observation is an acceptible method for gathering evidence in astronomy, archaeology, geology and myriad others, but not for evolutionary biology yet?

 

[Split Rock]

I can hang with everything but that last bit, which could include speciation, which occurence is uncontroversial. It has to be more of a shift than that for "macro" to have any meaning.

Please elaborate. If speciation does occur (which you have admitted) where is this magical boundary that prevents higher taxa from forming?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can hang with everything but that last bit, which could include speciation, which occurence is uncontroversial. It has to be more of a shift than that for "macro" to have any meaning.

Actually, that's just it: it doesn't mean anything, beyond genetic deviation between species. Speciation is something different altogether, which is a well documented phenomenon (i.e., we've seen it happen).

Ultimately, a species' genome does change over time, both with respect to its sister species, and to its ancestor species. Call these phenomena what you will, but they happen.

 

[yguy]

Please elaborate. If speciation does occur (which you have admitted) where is this magical boundary that prevents higher taxa from forming?

I never claimed anything prevents it from happening, only that no one can observe it happening.

 

[LightHorseman]

I never claimed anything prevents it from happening, only that no one can observe it happening.

Except for, like, all the times it HAS been observed...

 

[Split Rock]

I never claimed anything prevents it from happening, only that no one can observe it happening.

We can observe the effects of it happening on a species' genome, protein structure, developmental pattern, morphology, behavior, etc.

 

[LightHorseman]

We can observe the effects of it happening on a species' genome, protein structure, developmental pattern, morphology, behavior, etc.

Ring species. End of discussion