Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

[Lee Bowman]

Finally, since we are on eyes. If our eye is "intelligently designed", why is it wired backwards?

(for the cited science blogs retina misconception, see gotohell's prior post)

As you can see, the UV light has to travel through six layers of cells before hitting the rods and cones and the nerve fibers are the top most layer.

The 'inverted retina' argument has been long ago discredited. The metabolic support system requires it, and glial cells (muller cells) pass the photons to the receptors with absolutely NO distortion. A better designed system is hard to imagine. Cephalopods don't have bright light to deal with (metabolic support needs are less), and need the improved UV detection a 'verted' retina provides. I have also proposed that the nerve bundle may gain some stress support by forward retina attachment, rather than rear attachment. For a detailed explanation, google 'inverted retina' and 'trueorigin'

I had stated earlier, "Second point: You're citing one of the Young Earth Creationists' ploys. ID is NOT Creationism.

No, ID is simply "creationism-lite" and was founded with the specific goal of "putting creationism back into science classes".

(for the link to gotohell's Wedge document treatise, see his prior comment)

DI doesn't set the rules. The ten year old 'Wedge Document' may have pointed to motive then, but not now. ID is a science based investigation, and if it continues to show evidence, may change a few minds. But hey, reality IS reality, sans what you care to believe (Darwinist BS).

 

[Shogun]

this thread is like a punchline that never stops causing hilarity. Instead of evidence we still get rhetorical bullshit crafted to fit the predetermined notion of an intelligent designer.


ho hum.

 

[Lee Bowman]

this thread is like a punchline that never stops causing hilarity. Instead of evidence we still get rhetorical bullshit crafted to fit the predetermined notion of an intelligent designer.

ho hum.

What evidence have you offered to support your 'consensus' position. I assume you think that the vertebrate eye and its cerebral visual cortex (40% of the brain) evolved from a 'light sensitive patch of skin'. I'd be glad to debate you, or is it just fluff you're touting? Bullshit describes it better.

 

[geauxtohell]

this thread is like a punchline that never stops causing hilarity. Instead of evidence we still get rhetorical bullshit crafted to fit the predetermined notion of an intelligent designer.

ho hum.

What evidence have you offered to support your 'consensus' position. I assume you think that the vertebrate eye and its cerebral visual cortex (40% of the brain) evolved from a 'light sensitive patch of skin'. I'd be glad to debate you, or is it just fluff you're touting? Bullshit describes it better.

Instead of putting the cart before the horse, why don't you explain how you can falsify the existence/presence of a supernatural force; which is an absolute requirement for any hypothesis.

If you can't work a null hypothesis out of your speculations, then it's not a scientific theory.

Other than that, if you are actually doing bench science on this matter; I eagerly await your being published.

 

[geauxtohell]

Moreover the theory of evolution does not explain tissue and protein differentiation
withing the millions of species here on Earth.! The evolutionary process can not
explain how tissue differentiation works withing the context of the evolution!?.
Biomechanics of today have not fully explained this process.!!??
Or how the process is controlled or initiated.!!?

Sure it does. Is it a 100% explanation? No, of course not. No one ever claimed that evolution didn't have holes in it.

It still trumps attributing everything to a mystical being that, for some reason, decided to make tissue that likes to go rogue and produce cancer.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Evolution of Color Vision

Opsin Genes

ob Bales brought up an interesting topic in a recent post (well, it was recent when I started writing this). The topic is "evolution and color vision". Bob is apparently under some misconceptions either about color vision, or at least what evolutionary theory might predict about it. In a series of four posts beginning with this one, I want to ramble on and on about some of the background you might want to know if you were going to make some meaningful statements about evolution and color vision.

I'm going to start by describing a tiny fraction of what's well known about the molecular biology and biochemistry involved in visual transduction. If you're familiar with the topic, you may want to skip to the last couple of paragraphs in this post where I get to some data illuminating the evolutionary origins of the visual pigments. In followup posts I'm going to describe a bit of comparative psychology of color vision (to buttress the point that color vision systems are not all the same). In a third post I'm going to discuss some comparative anatomy, with a focus on the visual systems of mammals. I intend to demonstrate how comparative anatomy makes sense in light of what the fossil record tells us about the history of mammalian evolution. Finally, in a fourth post I will outline some of the steps that would be required in order for an organism to acquire color vision, with a discussion of how reasonable it is to suppose that such systems could evolve multiple times.

 

[Lee Bowman]

Truth is not determined by many people believe in it. Was there anyone out there who believed in heliocentric system before Copernicus? Did that mean that before Copernicus the system was different?

And just because the authorities can put you in jail for saying it, it doesn't change what is there. Putting Galaleio in jail does not change the fact that the earth moves. Especially if you are reading Hemingway.

As I age, what little evidence I see for design in the system shows less evidence of intelligence than sadism.

I believe in God, and I believe in evolution. Therefore, logically, I have to adhere to some belief in some form of ID. However, here is the difference: I recognize the limitation in the scientific method and that allow "God In The Gaps" to creep into our scientific process will screw everything up. To me, this is about preserving the methodology that governs how we define the natural world in a scientific concept. It is beyond the scope of science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Objectivity is the key to sorting out the truths of reality, whether it's an inward philosophic perspective, or bench experiments. Which is most suitable to understanding origins, and our ordained position therin? Both have their place. From my perspective, it is an overview and analysis of what is before us. Biology is in our face. With better diagnostic tools, we can now discern much more than in the past. But we still face an enigma; how to objectively analyse what we see. Teleology or no, that is the question. In order to arrive at a logical conclusion, we must strive for objectivity.

A foundational principal of Skepticism (atheism) is objective and rational thought. This goes back to Plato, Socrates and beyond. David Hume claimed to be a leader in rational thought, although from his writings, I see bias and prsupposition sprinkled throughout. And not just he, we all have presuppositions and biases. Religous bias is one, but a staunch adherance to Darwinst thought is another. The first could be by indoctrination or a religious experience; the second via academic indoctrination primarily. Neither should be a starting point for seeking truth.

I frankly have neither. So when I am accused of having religious bias, I just chuckle. I believe in an overseer, and in fact have had encounter type experiences, many in fact. But my position on ID is purely based upon observation. And my views are subject to modification.

As a biomedical engineer, and having studied genetics, anatomy, and some physics and math, I see virtually everything that is non random from a design perspective. But I know there are those who do not, will not, and buy into darwinian logic carte blanche. To me, this constitutes a stubborn refusal to at least consider that life is the intentional outcome of directed activities.

And yeah, the design flaws of the human body often times lead one to wonder what sort of intelligence guided this process.

I see all designs as less than perfect, or subject to revision/ modification. But as we all know, biologic system function well. Since vertebrate forms are only temporary anyway, and since they do work well, why nitpick? They are merely temporary vehicles for the 'real' self, a spirt form of some sort.

Regarding eyes in particular, the degenerate args I hear are silly and sophmoric. If I can zip through traffic while talking with someone in the car, glance at a chick in another car or on the sidewalk, handle an iphone, and all at a rapid pace, I'd say the eyes/ brain were functionaing well.

Or signt integrated to bodily functions in boxing or soccer, running to catch a ball in the outfield with sun in your eyes, or catching a ball between first and second while keeping your eye on the runner. And then I hear that the eyes are bad designs! B S

On top of that, I am dismayed (but not surprised), the dishonest institutions like the Discovery Institute would be run by a bunch of "born again" lawyers and other soft science (at best) eggheads that don't deem it necessary to allocate a bulk of their funding into any research and instead dump their efforts into trying to sway public opinion. They have no interest in science, they are simply a political action committee in wolves clothing.

I see a new crop of design proponents in the wings. They may accept a religious orientation or not, but they will not be agenda based due to a priori religious indoctrination. No, like I, they will be rationalists, even skeptics, but skeptical of ordained and imputed beliefs no matter which side is represented by those beliefs.

Given the Internet as a resource, some will be of the 'new atheist' ilk, but the others will be design theorists, and will not accept darwinian tenets in the classroom. They just won't. And in sense, I feel for the profs who will have to deal with them ...

 

[Old Rocks]

Profs that have to deal with those unable to apply simple logic? Most will drop out of college before their second year. The rest will not take anything but the requiered science courses, and display their ignorance in poly sci or bus admin.

 

[Shogun]

this thread is like a punchline that never stops causing hilarity. Instead of evidence we still get rhetorical bullshit crafted to fit the predetermined notion of an intelligent designer.

ho hum.

What evidence have you offered to support your 'consensus' position. I assume you think that the vertebrate eye and its cerebral visual cortex (40% of the brain) evolved from a 'light sensitive patch of skin'. I'd be glad to debate you, or is it just fluff you're touting? Bullshit describes it better.

asking for evidence from someone else doesn't prove YOUR assertion and total lack of evidence. Clearly, you are familiar with the scientific method.

 

[52ndStreet]

Moreover the theory of evolution does not explain tissue and protein differentiation
withing the millions of species here on Earth.! The evolutionary process can not
explain how tissue differentiation works withing the context of the evolution!?.
Biomechanics of today have not fully explained this process.!!??
Or how the process is controlled or initiated.!!?

Sure it does. Is it a 100% explanation? No, of course not. No one ever claimed that evolution didn't have holes in it.

It still trumps attributing everything to a mystical being that, for some reason, decided to make tissue that likes to go rogue and produce cancer.

Well then if the theory of evolution has holes in it , it should not be the only theory that is taught in school. And scientist must also entertain other theorys with regards to human
existence here on Earth. Remember, these are all just "Theorys", not scientific fact.!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Intelligent Design "Theory" is just the phrase Creationists used to try to pass off their "Theory" onto those with less religious convictions than themselves. It's not even a scientific theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Moreover the theory of evolution does not explain tissue and protein differentiation
withing the millions of species here on Earth.! The evolutionary process can not
explain how tissue differentiation works withing the context of the evolution!?.
Biomechanics of today have not fully explained this process.!!??
Or how the process is controlled or initiated.!!?

Sure it does. Is it a 100% explanation? No, of course not. No one ever claimed that evolution didn't have holes in it.

It still trumps attributing everything to a mystical being that, for some reason, decided to make tissue that likes to go rogue and produce cancer.

Well then if the theory of evolution has holes in it , it should not be the only theory that is taught in school. And scientist must also entertain other theorys with regards to human
existence here on Earth. Remember, these are all just "Theorys", not scientific fact.!

Apparently you do not understand what constitutes a scientific theory. It is a broad overarching explanation for a phenomonem. It can never be 'proven', can only be falsified. And, in the last 150 years, no one has successfully falsified the Theory of Evolution.

There have been additions to it as our understanding has grown, and the science of genetics came into being.

However, all of these advance simply showed the theory to be more robust.

Now your ID is not a theory, it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. And almost all the 'evidence' used to support it has been shown to be wrong.

 

[geauxtohell]

Moreover the theory of evolution does not explain tissue and protein differentiation
withing the millions of species here on Earth.! The evolutionary process can not
explain how tissue differentiation works withing the context of the evolution!?.
Biomechanics of today have not fully explained this process.!!??
Or how the process is controlled or initiated.!!?

Sure it does. Is it a 100% explanation? No, of course not. No one ever claimed that evolution didn't have holes in it.

It still trumps attributing everything to a mystical being that, for some reason, decided to make tissue that likes to go rogue and produce cancer.

Well then if the theory of evolution has holes in it , it should not be the only theory that is taught in school. And scientist must also entertain other theorys with regards to human
existence here on Earth. Remember, these are all just "Theorys", not scientific fact.!

Okay fine. Feel free to provide another scientifically valid theory that can compete with evolution.

BTW, let's not play the "theory" semantics game. It's going to lead me to think you are dishonest or completely ignorant of this subject.

 

[eagleseven]

Well then if the theory of evolution has holes in it , it should not be the only theory that is taught in school. And scientist must also entertain other theorys with regards to human existence here on Earth. Remember, these are all just "Theorys", not scientific fact.!

Perhaps we should teach our children Reincarnation Theory, too? I mean, it has some holes, but it does explain where we came from.

 

[52ndStreet]

Well then if the theory of evolution has holes in it , it should not be the only theory that is taught in school. And scientist must also entertain other theorys with regards to human existence here on Earth. Remember, these are all just "Theorys", not scientific fact.!

Perhaps we should teach our children Reincarnation Theory, too? I mean, it has some holes, but it does explain where we came from.

I don't know why everyone is blindly accepting Darwins theory of evolution, as if they were present throughout human history to observe this theory.?

Intelligent design makes more sense to me, as I said earlier, Darwins theory does not fully
explain tissue differentiation, nor does it explain protein activation and or, protein
direction of the tissues of the millions of species here on Earth. Darwins theory just
states that we evolved from small single cell organisms to more complex ones. It gives
no explanation of how these millions of species were able to differentiate into the
millions of different species we see today on Earth.!
Given this big missing gap in Darwins theory, the only other logical choice is Intelligent design. Many other scientist are accepting Intelligent design now also.
Scientist today are still unable to figure out how protein initiation of human tissue, and tissue differentiation works.!!
DNA , was just discovered about 40 years ago!.
So please don't ask me to accept a theory with so many gaps in it as the theory of evolution has!!
Darwin was wrong.Look at the Cambrian period information.!!
And Cambrian period theory.!!!

 

[uscitizen]

Yep DNA was discovered just 40 years or so ago.

And a few hundred years ago we thought evil spirits and sin caused disease and illness.

Imagine what we will know in another hundred years.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't know why everyone is blindly accepting Darwins theory of evolution, as if they were present throughout human history to observe this theory.?

Oh please. If you put the "directly observable" caveat on anything, then the truth is that we can't speculate about anything to include religion, theology, science, geology, astronomy, etc.

Let's just agree that was a silly point.

Intelligent design makes more sense to me, as I said earlier, Darwins theory does not fully
explain tissue differentiation, nor does it explain protein activation and or, protein
direction of the tissues of the millions of species here on Earth. Darwins theory just
states that we evolved from small single cell organisms to more complex ones. It gives
no explanation of how these millions of species were able to differentiate into the
millions of different species we see today on Earth.!
Given this big missing gap in Darwins theory, the only other logical choice is Intelligent design. Many other scientist are accepting Intelligent design now also.
Scientist today are still unable to figure out how protein initiation of human tissue, and tissue differentiation works.!!
DNA , was just discovered about 40 years ago!.
So please don't ask me to accept a theory with so many gaps in it as the theory of evolution has!!
Darwin was wrong.Look at the Cambrian period information.!!
And Cambrian period theory.!!!

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You are free to believe what you want.

You just don't get to transpose that upon everyone else. Especially those of us who spot the obvious absurdities in your posts and understand the methodology behind science and the reason for it.

In other words, you don't get to define what is and is not scientific based on your reservations. There are professionals that do that for a living.

 

[HUGGY]

Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

Ummm...no its not

Well here me out on this one... As the global population increases so does the number of stupid people. So naturally the number of people who believe in intelligent design will increase. Now this is not to say that every one who believes in intelligent design is an idiot and everyone who believes in evolution is a genius but just that there is a propensity for the unintelligent and/or generally ignorant to subscribe to intelligent design.

It is worse than that. As society makes it safer for idiots to survive childhood and those daring teen years there are more stupid people around that used to get thinned from the herd in earlier times... plus the International corporations that own the media have been dumbing down the general population to dilute intelligence in the american citizenery. That is the only way a handfull of evil gready bastards can control what you know and what you buy.

 

[52ndStreet]

I don't know why everyone is blindly accepting Darwins theory of evolution, as if they were present throughout human history to observe this theory.?

Oh please. If you put the "directly observable" caveat on anything, then the truth is that we can't speculate about anything to include religion, theology, science, geology, astronomy, etc.

Let's just agree that was a silly point.

Intelligent design makes more sense to me, as I said earlier, Darwins theory does not fully
explain tissue differentiation, nor does it explain protein activation and or, protein
direction of the tissues of the millions of species here on Earth. Darwins theory just
states that we evolved from small single cell organisms to more complex ones. It gives
no explanation of how these millions of species were able to differentiate into the
millions of different species we see today on Earth.!
Given this big missing gap in Darwins theory, the only other logical choice is Intelligent design. Many other scientist are accepting Intelligent design now also.
Scientist today are still unable to figure out how protein initiation of human tissue, and tissue differentiation works.!!
DNA , was just discovered about 40 years ago!.
So please don't ask me to accept a theory with so many gaps in it as the theory of evolution has!!
Darwin was wrong.Look at the Cambrian period information.!!
And Cambrian period theory.!!!

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You are free to believe what you want.

You just don't get to transpose that upon everyone else. Especially those of us who spot the obvious absurdities in your posts and understand the methodology behind science and the reason for it.

In other words, you don't get to define what is and is not scientific based on your reservations. There are professionals that do that for a living.

And these "Professionals Scientist" , were they around all those millions of years to observe Darwins theory of evolution?. Where is the facts of the theory of evolution
that these so called "Professional Scientist" claim to have ??.
That can explain all the biological complexities that we see on the Earth today!!?
Did all these complex creatures all evolve from ameoba slime?, please give me a break Darwins theory is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.!!

 

[geauxtohell]

And these "Professionals Scientist" , were they around all those millions of years to observe Darwins theory of evolution?.

Why ask silly rhetorical questions? There are a lot of things in nature we can't directly observe. We can't directly observe ATPase making ATP, yet we can design experiments to figure out how it works. If we limited science to what is directly observable, the field would narrow dramatically.

As an aside, if you subscribe to ID, then you accept evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species, you just think that some supernatural force was guiding the process.

In that vein, no one observed that process either. In light of that, your point is even more silly.

It becomes unworkable scientifically when you realize and accept that you can't falsify a deity and you can't observe (either directly or through experiments) the existence of a deity and their contribution to ID.

That's the point you guys seemingly don't get.

Where is the facts of the theory of evolution

Easy to find. I am not going to do your homework for you. Especially when you'll just ignore it. Again, evolution is the mechanism ID uses to explain the origin of man. Your problem (if you adhere to ID) isn't evolution, it's whether the process of evolution was guided or happened randomly in nature.

that these so called "Professional Scientist" claim to have ??.
That can explain all the biological complexities that we see on the Earth today!!?
Did all these complex creatures all evolve from ameoba slime?, please give me a break Darwins theory is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.!!

Darwin's theory only proximately resembles modern evolutionary theory. Darwin was hardly the first to come up with the idea of species evolving over time. His main contribution was the concept that fitness drives speciation, which is still recognized as the bedrock of modern evolutionary theory. If your claim is that Darwin's theory is absurd in certain places, few would argue with you. He had no good mechanism to explain genetics. Hard to fault the guy since he came up with this in 1859 (actually, he came up with it 20 years before that).

Thus, if you think Darwin's theory is what is being taught in evolutionary biology classes now as the most current explanation for the origin of species, you are completely ignorant on this topic.

In fact, based on your posts on the matter, I don't think you understand the differences between ID, Darwin's Theory, and the Modern Synthesis Concept of Evolution.

Not surprising.