What things can't ID explain? What things can't evolution explain? Bring it on!

shinbits · Feb 1, 2006

The other thread I started kept drifting off topic, even though it was a nice friendly one (certain evolutionists will remain nameless who just have to bash ID or creation, even when the thread is a friendly and neutral one)

But anyway................

This'll be a fun thread.

Here are the rules, and I ask everyone to abide by them:

If you're an evo supporter, post something you think ID can't explain; but also post if you think evolution can explain it. If it can, show how.

If you're an ID supporter, post something you think evolution can't explain; but also post if you think ID can explain it. If it can, show how.

Okay?

To answer a question on a different thread:

An octopus has better wiring for sight than most mammels, because it's harder to see under water then on land. So it's design reflects need for better wiring.

LogicChristian · Feb 1, 2006

ID can't really explain anything concerning biological diversity. "Poof, Goddidit" is not a very accurate or detailed account of how we came to be.

shinbits · Feb 1, 2006

LogicChristian said:
ID can't really explain anything concerning biological diversity. "Poof, Goddidit" is not a very accurate or detailed account of how we came to be.

okay, before I answer, can evolution explain there's such incredible variation with organisms, and yet the circle of life continues, and the number of predetors, prey, and plants remain constant?

Remember the rules.

LogicChristian · Feb 1, 2006

shinbits said:
okay, before I answer, can evolution explain there's such incredible variation with organisms, and yet the circle of life continues, and the number of predetors, prey, and plants remain constant?

Remember the rules.

Evolution explains the vast diversity of life through mutations, genetic recombination, and natural selection. Your definition of evo on another thread though would indicate that maybe you should read up on what evolution actually is before you start waiting for answers to these questions.

The number of predator, prey, and plants does not remain constant by the way, neither evolution or ID would explain that because it doesn't happen. Evolution does explain equillibria between predator and prey populations, maybe that's what you meant.

shinbits · Feb 1, 2006

LogicChristian said:
Evolution explains the vast diversity of life through mutations, genetic recombination, and natural selection.

how? If I just said "ID explains whatever concept", would that be enough? No, you'd want me to show how, right?

LogicChristian said:
Your definition of evo on another thread though would indicate that maybe you should read up on what evolution actually is before you start waiting for answers to these questions.

In your own words, as concisely as can possibly be stated, define evolution.
We'll use your definiton as the standard.

LogicChristian said:
Evolution does explain equillibria between predator and prey populations, maybe that's what you meant.

yes, that's what I meant; the ratio remains constant.

LogicChristian · Feb 1, 2006

shinbits said:
how? If I just said "ID explains whatever concept", would that be enough? No, you'd want me to show how, right?

You can't show how, you just say "poof Goddidit" when it comes to ID.

If the same population is split by temporal, geographic, or other reasons, two populations of the same species placed in a different environment will evolve into different species eventually (given that there's little genetic drift between them) because a different environment will place different selective pressures on each population, causing different types of individuals to survive in each one.

shinbits said:
In your own words, as concisely as can possibly be stated, define evolution.
We'll use your definiton as the standard.

Considering I didn't list my definition on the other thread, that might be a little difficult. Do you even know what my definition is?

I'll tell you what, how about we just use:

A change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next.

shinbits said:
yes, that's what I meant; the ratio remains constant.

The ratio doesn't remain exactly constant in all populations though. And ID does nothing to explain the equillibria found between predator and prey, it just says "poof Godiddit." Where there's a ton of research on this very subject in the biology community.

Evolution has many different reasons for the relationship between predator and prey, depending on which predator and which prey you're talking about. In fact, I'm taking a great class right now under Dr. Robert Sussman where we're learning about the co-evolution between angiosperms and the birds, bats, and primates that ate their fruit.

Split Rock · Feb 1, 2006

shinbits said:
okay, before I answer, can evolution explain there's such incredible variation with organisms, and yet the circle of life continues, and the number of predetors, prey, and plants remain constant?

Remember the rules.

Every organism born has a few mutations in their DNA. Therefore, the cirlce of life itself promotes change. One generation replaces the previous one, and that new generation is always different. It may or may not be different enough to warant interest from us, depending on the selective pressures (or lack thereof) on the population.

No, predetor/ prey ratios are not necessarily constant. In many cases there are cycles that alternate between highs and lows, and there are environmental factors as well. It is , however, self-correcting, in that if predator numbers are too high, prey will decrease, and this will result in high death rate among predators, until a new balance is acheived. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with evolution, it is more of an ecology question.

OK, how does ID explain variation within a species?

shinbits · Feb 1, 2006

LogicChristian said:
You can't show how, you just say "poof Goddidit" when it comes to ID.

If the same population is split by temporal, geographic, or other reasons, two populations of the same species placed in a different environment will evolve into different species eventually (given that there's little genetic drift between them) because a different environment will place different selective pressures on each population, causing different types of individuals to survive in each one.

One thing that's true, is that traits devoloped in a population do pass on to offspring.

The problem comes when we consider organisms like birds. How envirornmental factors would cause it to devolop wings, then devolop flight?

At this point, it's just guesses.

Or lions. What envirornmental factors caused it to start developing a roar?
Whatever's offered is just a guess.

But if we apply ID, everything fits together, that a designer would consider these factors, and add them.

"I don't wann hear goddidit"

There are specific instances where the only logical conclusion, would be a designer. This instance would come when evolution is unable to explain something.

Which makes sense---either something was intelligently designed, or it wasn't.

There's only two options.

LogicChristian said:
I'll tell you what, how about we just use:

A change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next.

Thanx. We'll use this.

LogicChristian said:
The ratio doesn't remain exactly constant in all populations though.

Are there any populations which are extinct or edangered, as a result of unbalanced predator/prey ratio?

Humans are the only organisms that can affect this. Otherwise, the circle of life continues on forever, balanced and working correctly---

Intelligently designed ecosystems, made in such a way that that one will never wipe out the other.

LogicChristian · Feb 1, 2006

shinbits said:
One thing that's true, is that traits devoloped in a population do pass on to offspring.

The problem comes when we consider organisms like birds. How envirornmental factors would cause it to devolop wings, then devolop flight?

At this point, it's just guesses.

Or lions. What envirornmental factors caused it to start developing a roar?
Whatever's offered is just a guess.

But if we apply ID, everything fits together, that a designer would consider these factors, and add them.

"I don't wann hear goddidit"

There are specific instances where the only logical conclusion, would be a designer. This instance would come when evolution is unable to explain something.

Which makes sense---either something was intelligently designed, or it wasn't.

There's only two options.

Who said the birds started out with wings? Many creatures in nature have what a creationist may call a "transitional form" for example the stretchy skin on the flying squirrel that allows it to glide.

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/

If we apply ID to any of the questions you asked, we don't get any real or detailed answers about what happened, just the catchall "goddidit."

shinbits said:
Humans are the only organisms that can affect this. Otherwise, the circle of life continues on forever, balanced and working correctly---

Do you have a source for this?

shinbits said:
Intelligently designed ecosystems, made in such a way that that one will never wipe out the other.

Or ecosystems where consumers, producers, predator, and prey grew and in many cases coevolved into a state of equillibrium.

shinbits · Feb 1, 2006

LogicChristian said:
Who said the birds started out with wings?

I never said birds started out with wings. In fact, that's one of the problems evolution faces.

What envirornmental factors would cause any organism to devolop wings, then devolop sophisticated flight abilities?

LogicChristian said:
Do you have a source for this?

Can you name any organism that has wiped out it's prey that's not a human?

caravelair · Feb 1, 2006

technically, ID could explain anything: "poof! magic!"

but in reality, it explains nothing. i can't think of a single fact that ID could provide a real useful explanation for.

LogicChristian · Feb 1, 2006

shinbits said:
I never said birds started out with wings. In fact, that's one of the problems evolution faces.

What envirornmental factors would cause any organism to devolop wings, then devolop sophisticated flight abilities?

Take for example airborne predators and scavengers. If you're surviving off of small animals that have the ability to hide well or that aren't terribly numerous, or if you're constantly having to scavenge dead animals, it helps to have as wide an area to search as possible. The accuracy required by such a creature would necessitate the "sophisticated flight abilities" you mentioned.

The fact is, ID doesn't better explain any of the things you mentioned. Since the answer to everything is "an intelligent designer created it," ID attempts to explain everything, and in the process, ends up explaining absolutely nothing.

shinbits said:
Can you name any organism that has wiped out it's prey that's not a human?

Take a look at what wolves do to moose and caribou in alaska if the wolf population is not kept in check.

Mystman · Feb 1, 2006

As already said, ID can explain anything.

The only thing that remains then is "why would God create AIDS? Why would God make children in such a way that they can get cancer at a young age? Why would God make humans so freaking weak? Why would God make create humans at all? Why would.. etc etc etc"

the awnsers to this questions are:

1. The Fall.
This awnser makes no sense. Please don't use it.

2. He felt like it.
This awnser makes sense, but explains nothing. Feel free to use it (it's better than the Fall one..), but I will laugh at you if you think it actually is a meaningfull awnser.

shinbits · Feb 1, 2006

LogicChristian said:
Take for example airborne predators and scavengers. If you're surviving off of small animals that have the ability to hide well or that aren't terribly numerous, or if you're constantly having to scavenge dead animals, it helps to have as wide an area to search as possible. The accuracy required by such a creature would necessitate the "sophisticated flight abilities" you mentioned.

Then why haven't all predetors of "small, not terribly numerous" prey devoloped wings?

ID shows a designer with a mindset to keep things different.

LogicChristian said:
Take a look at what wolves do to moose and caribou in alaska if the wolf population is not kept in check.

Generation after generation, wolves and caribou have existed, and the circle of life continues.

I'll ask my question again: What population that is not a human, has wiped out it's prey?

Can you think of one?

No. Instead, you've mentioned two populations that have existed with each other for countless generations.

LogicChristian · Feb 1, 2006

shinbits said:
Then why haven't all predetors of "small, not terribly numerous" prey devoloped wings?

ID shows a designer with a mindset to keep things different.

And here your understanding of what evolution is and how it works is found lacking again.

Their defensive mechanisms to avoid predation include numbers, detection, evasion, and in some cases, active defense mechanisms. They don't need wings, and have never been in an environment that would facilitate wing growth to attempt to run from predators.

Why did the ID want to keep things different? How did he actually go about creating the differences in creatures? Again ID theory doesn't explain any of the hows or whys of genetic diversity, it just says "poof, God made it that way" which really doesn't explain anything at all.

Like I said, ID tries to explain everything, and in the process ends up explaining absolutely nothing. The answer that "god did it" for everything that is the way it is in biology doesn't give us any useful or applicable data about what we can do as human beings. Evolution on the other hand does.

Anyway, here's a challenge to you, show me one real world application of intelligent design. Show me one set of scientists or engineers that actually use what ID teaches in their profession.

shinbits said:
Generation after generation, wolves and caribou have existed, and the circle of life continues.

I'll ask my question again: What population that is not a human, has wiped out it's prey?

Can you think of one?

No. Instead, you've mentioned two populations that have existed with each other for countless generations.

How about we make a deal, before trying to speak with something on authority, why don't you read up and make sure you're actually correct?

If wolves and caribou lived together in perfect harmony, Alaska wouldn't have had to kill so many to prevent overpredation.

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/june/alaska-kills-273-wolves.html

shinbits · Feb 1, 2006

LogicChristian said:
Anyway, here's a challenge to you, show me one real world application of intelligent design. Show me one set of scientists or engineers that actually use what ID teaches in their profession.

I'll answer it, if you answer the question that you skipped:

LogicChristian said:
Take for example airborne predators and scavengers. If you're surviving off of small animals that have the ability to hide well or that aren't terribly numerous, or if you're constantly having to scavenge dead animals, it helps to have as wide an area to search as possible. The accuracy required by such a creature would necessitate the "sophisticated flight abilities" you mentioned.

My question:
Why would those predetors become airborne if thier prey is on the ground? Think about it. What you've said doens't make sense.

Birds then, could not have evolved from airborne predetors.

The best explination? ID.

LogicChristian said:
If wolves and caribou lived together in perfect harmony, Alaska wouldn't have had to kill so many to prevent overpredation.

Did caribou need human help thousands of years ago? How about just one thousand years ago? Five hundred?

That niche has survived nicely without human interference and would continue to do so.

Elduran · Feb 1, 2006

Predator/prey populations are controlled by differential equations. Let's assume that in an area we have rabbits and foxes, represented by populations R and F. Now, the population of rabbits can be assumed to have a growth rate proportional to the number of rabbits and a slaughter rate proportional to the number of foxes, in addition to a death rate which we shall assume is also proportional to the number of rabbits.

As such, change in the number of rabbits, dR/dT = kR - jF

Now, the number of foxes follows a similar pattern, only the birth and death rates are proportional to F rather than R. However, there is also a link to R which determines the maximum number of foxes that can exist on that food supply at any one time.

As such, assuming no other sources of food and no outside influences, the fox population will eventually end up in a pseudo-steady state based on the rabbit population.

Evolution doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Phred · Feb 1, 2006

shinbits said:
post something you think ID can't explain; but also post if you think evolution can explain it. If it can, show how.

Anything can be explained by incredulity. "Goddidit" has been a standard answer forever. What ID or scientific creationism can't explain is what the designer is.

So... if there's a designer out there, identify it.

Herman Hedning · Feb 1, 2006

LogicChristian said:
Take a look at what wolves do to moose and caribou in alaska if the wolf population is not kept in check.

Yes, do take a look at that, considering the fact that they have lived side by side for tens of thousands years without man doing any keeping-in-check.

LogicChristian · Feb 1, 2006

shinbits said:
I'll answer it, if you answer the question that you skipped:

My question:
Why would those predetors become airborne if thier prey is on the ground? Think about it. What you've said doens't make sense.

Birds then, could not have evolved from airborne predetors.

The best explination? ID.

Why does a hawk eat snakes and other small animals? Why would the ID make it airborne if its prey is on the ground? Think about it. What you've said doesn't make sense.

It actually makes a lot of sense, if your prey is on the ground but widely dispersed, being airborne is an efficient and effective way to cover a large area.

Your explanation of "poof, God just made it that way" doesn't even resolve the question you asked. The only reason you say its the best explanation is that nobody can ask another question about it because you just say "poof, god did it."

Science isn't about covering up the complexity behind nature, it's about asking questions to discover the nature of that complexity. ID just covers it up by saying "poof, God made it that way" and leaving questions alone.

Like I said, it tries to explain everything, and in the process explains nothing.

What question did I overlook?

shinbits said:
Did caribou need human help thousands of years ago? How about just one thousand years ago? Five hundred?

That niche has survived nicely without human interference and would continue to do so.

1) You don't know that, neither do I.
2) One thing is clear, the "constant ratio" of predator to prey that mentioned is completely untrue.

What things can't ID explain? What things can't evolution explain? Bring it on!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Atheist with a Reason

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Disruptive influence

Junior Mint

Hiking is fun

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency