A question - Intelligent Design

[dmp]

So you're saying Divine Intervention could not have occured through DNA ?

No, I'm saying DNA has never changed to the point of a new species being created. DI created everything mostly as-is...we've gotten 'taller' and 'fatter' as people...but we've always BEEN people. Never apes, or lower primates, etc.

 

[dilloduck]

No, I'm saying DNA has never changed to the point of a new species being created. DI created everything mostly as-is...we've gotten 'taller' and 'fatter' as people...but we've always BEEN people. Never apes, or lower primates, etc.

Personally I just don't see the conflict-----Do you have a problem with the divine intervention of primate DNA to create man?

 

[no1tovote4]

Our ability to manipulate DNA through experimentation does not provide "proof" that our DNA was intentionally manipulated in the past.

By who? Who was the past historical DNA manipulator and where have they gone? Surely you're not suggesting that these alleged manipulators hung around for a few BILLION years manipulating the entire evolutionary chain, then TOOK OFF without a trace?

If you are claiming that they came down and did a quick DNA fix - a nip and tuck if you will - and then let evolution take it's course, that still means that evolution is responsible for the vast (99.999999999999%) of what has developed. That's hardly "ID" as most people wild have it.


Regards


Andy

There is no missing link. Why? There is not one species with an entire evolutionary chain found. Why again?

It could be manipulation, but we do not seek evidence because we don't expect to find it? That isn't sceintific process it is arrogance and assumption. We assume we are right about this and therefore will not look for this evidence.

Could it be relevant? Maybe not, but there is no reason to assume and not even attempt to look for information regarding this particular theory.

As for where are they now. Maybe all the Alien theorists are the ones that are right and they are right under our noses. Maybe they lost a interstellar war, maybe we were left to our own devises for scientific discovery. Maybe we aren't intelligent enough to meet their needs and they had to give the experiment a miss and move on to a different place. Shoot as long as we don't look questions like this cannot be answered.

 

[dmp]

Do you have a problem with the divine intervention of primate DNA to create man?

Yes.

 

[5stringJeff]

Have you actually looked at what the ID-ers are calling evidence to bolster their theory? It goes like this. You look around nature and find something complicated, like the structure of a snowflake. You assert that because it is complicated, that it couldn't have occurred naturally, and therefore it is evidence of ID.

Do you honestly believe that ever since Darwin published his theory, that there haven't been religious scientists working feverishly around the clock trying to come up with evidence to refute evolution? If they had found it, we'd have heard about it and school curriculum would have been adapted to account for it.

I am an IDer. I understand what evidence is used as proof for ID. (Your snowflake example is flawed, BTW, because a snowflake is not a living thing.) Many IDers use the concept of irreducible complexity as a proof of ID. The flagellum of a one-celled organism would be an example of this. A flagellum is basically a motor for the cell. It is composed of three different parts, all of which are useless unless the three are together in just the right structure. Darwinian theory, which states that organisms evolve one mutation at a time, cannot explain the sudden appearance of a three-part motor on a cell. ID says that such a piece was designed to be on that cell.

There is a lot of other evidence that points to ID, which I won't get into right now. But the reason you don't see it in schools is because evolutionists don't want to consider any evidence that contradicts their theory. It's not that they have won the debate; they don't even want to have the debate.

 

[CivilLiberty]

What if the DNA was originally DESIGNED to evolve ? No nip or tuck would be neccesssary.

Are you saying some kind of deistic "seed"?

Then who planted it?

And how is that "concept" any more valid that one of chaotic chemical reactions from fatty acids in rocks, which is something that has been show in laboratory experiments?


Regards


A

 

[dilloduck]

Are you saying some kind of deistic "seed"?

Then who planted it?

And how is that "concept" any more valid that one of chaotic chemical reactions from fatty acids in rocks, which is something that has been show in laboratory experiments?


Regards


A

merely tossing it into the discussion--maybe god?--again--since no one can prove anything here, none have more "validity" than the other.

 

[nakedemperor]

merely tossing it into the discussion--maybe god?--again--since no one can prove anything here, none have more "validity" than the other.

This is sort of an empirical cop-out. You can't "prove" that gravity exists. Sure there's LOADS of evidence considering everything drops at a velocity of 9.8 m/s every single time you drop it, but, who knows, maybe next time it won't. If there are mountains of evidence to support a theory, a theory that cannot be proven 100% true, but can allow for extrapolation based on immense amounts of evidence stemming from genetics to paleantology to archaeology to chemistry, etc. etc. than that "theory" becomes the generally accepted model for understanding the concept it encompasses.

The "theory" of intelligent design has zero empirical evidence to support it. It was armchair philosophy and a 2,000 year old book, in the Christian school of thought, written by other human beings. The evidence to support it is a pea to evolition's Everest. So, following the law of anti-pettiness, ID and evoution should not get equal billing on account of the sheer volume of solid data supporting one, and the complete and utter lack of dat supporting the other.

 

[CivilLiberty]

...but DNA hasn't evolved to the point where one species becomes another. Ever. That's the foundation of most evolutionist teachings.

False. Speciation HAS been proven. It's observed all the time with Drosophila melanogaster and other organisms with small generation spans.* The factor that creationists cannot seem to get past is the one of time span and for some reason this is a barrier in their ability to understand of speciation in larger organisms with longer generation spans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~dangut/



READ.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

The "theory" of intelligent design has zero empirical evidence to support it. It was armchair philosophy and a 2,000 year old book, in the Christian school of thought, written by other human beings. The evidence to support it is a pea to evolition's Everest. So, following the law of anti-pettiness, ID and evoution should not get equal billing on account of the sheer volume of solid data supporting one, and the complete and utter lack of dat supporting the other.

That is where you are incorrect. There is as much empirical evidence for one as the other. The Evolution theory has huge holes in it, and needs something to get it past that little hump of not even one single species has been found with a complete record of evolution. There is a missing piece in every case that makes guesses part of the "theory". The empirical evidence doesn't match up to the theory. At best it should be presented as a Hypothesis and not a theory. Those gaps suggest that ID may have played a part in that Evolution, and guessing that there may have been intervention is equally valid as guessing what pieces are missing in the evolutionary ladder.

 

[no1tovote4]

False. Speciation HAS been proven. It's observed all the time with Drosophila melanogaster and other organisms with small generation spans.* The factor that creationists cannot seem to get past is the one of time span and for some reason this is a barrier in their ability to understand of speciation in larger organisms with longer generation spans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~dangut/



READ.


A

On a micro scale. As I said, the jury is still out. Over Centuries with writing and records we can observe current living species and see if evolution is a valid theory. Or we can actually find records of a complete evolutionary cycle either way it can be proven but has not been such. Micro and Macro evolution are completely different items with different empirical evidence needed to convince a scientist of a truth.

 

[dmp]

False. Speciation HAS been proven. It's observed all the time with Drosophila melanogaster and other organisms with small generation spans.* The factor that creationists cannot seem to get past is the one of time span and for some reason this is a barrier in their ability to understand of speciation in larger organisms with longer generation spans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~dangut/



READ.


A

Uh....(cough)bullshit(cough)

I can't say it better than:

Micro and Macro evolution are completely different items with different empirical evidence needed to convince a scientist of a truth.

 

[CivilLiberty]

This is sort of an empirical cop-out. You can't "prove" that gravity exists.

No, you can "prove" gravity exists. What we can't yet do is "prove" the mechanism that causes gravity.

Similarly we can prove that evolution resulted in the world we have today, though we can't fully "prove" all the mechanisms involved.

One of the big problems here is one of semantics. The scientific term "theory" meaning "the description of empirical observations and conclusions" is interpreted by creationists as meaning "something imaginary".


To wit, creationists cannot "prove" that some "god thing" created everything by a wave of his mighty hand, and there is not one shred of evidence to support their superstitious beliefs, while there is plenty that is counter to their beliefs.

Young earth people cannot prove that the earth is only 6000 years only, and there is not one shred of evidence to support their superstitious beliefs, while there is plenty that is counter to their beliefs.


When I first encountered real creationists in the 80s, I honestly thought is was a practical joke. I really could not believe that people thought this way. You might call this my "theory of ignorance" - we can prove that creationists are ignorant, but we can't "prove" the mechanism that causes them to be ignorant!


hahah - I crack myself up...


Andy

 

[5stringJeff]

False. Speciation HAS been proven. It's observed all the time with Drosophila melanogaster and other organisms with small generation spans.* The factor that creationists cannot seem to get past is the one of time span and for some reason this is a barrier in their ability to understand of speciation in larger organisms with longer generation spans.

The "speciation" in animals is really nothing more than 'certain populations of fruit flies tend to mate with other fruit flies with similar traits.' It's like pointing out that whites mostly marry whites, blacks mostly marry blacks, and Asians mostly marry Asians, and then claiming that they are all different spieces.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Uh....(cough)bullshit(cough)

What...ya got a ccratchy throat? Try drinking another Pabst Blue Ribbon.



A

 

[5stringJeff]

Young earth people cannot prove that the earth is only 6000 years only, and there is not one shred of evidence to support their superstitious beliefs, while there is plenty that is counter to their beliefs.


When I first encountered real creationists in the 80s, I honestly thought is was a practical joke. I really could not believe that people thought this way. You might call this my "theory of ignorance" - we can prove that creationists are ignorant, but we can't "prove" the mechanism that causes them to be ignorant!

"Young Earth" creationists constitute a small, but vocal, minority of all of us who believe in creationism and/or ID. I am not one of them.

 

[no1tovote4]

No, you can "prove" gravity exists. What we can't yet do is "prove" the mechanism that causes gravity.

Similarly we can prove that evolution resulted in the world we have today, though we can't fully "prove" all the mechanisms involved.

One of the big problems here is one of semantics. The scientific term "theory" meaning "the description of empirical observations and conclusions" is interpreted by creationists as meaning "something imaginary".

Except that I have shown that empirical evidence is missing and quesses are part of this particular "theory" and speculated that it may be mistermed and possibly should be called a hypothesis.

To wit, creationists cannot "prove" that some "god thing" created everything by a wave of his mighty hand, and there is not one shred of evidence to support their superstitious beliefs, while there is plenty that is counter to their beliefs.

To wit, there are missing evolutionary models in every single species, there has not been even one complex animal where the evolutionary line was complete. This makes it so guesses are made as to what fills in those gaps, it is just as valid to guess ID as it is to guess Evolution.

Young earth people cannot prove that the earth is only 6000 years only, and there is not one shred of evidence to support their superstitious beliefs, while there is plenty that is counter to their beliefs.


When I first encountered real creationists in the 80s, I honestly thought is was a practical joke. I really could not believe that people thought this way. You might call this my "theory of ignorance" - we can prove that creationists are ignorant, but we can't "prove" the mechanism that causes them to be ignorant!

Creationism is an entirely different belief than ID and should be treated as such.

hahah - I crack myself up...


Andy

How exciting ALF...

And your jokes are about as funny as your scientific "theory" based on missing evidence and guesses.

 

[CivilLiberty]

The "speciation" in animals is really nothing more than 'certain populations of fruit flies tend to mate with other fruit flies with similar traits.' It's like pointing out that whites mostly marry whites, blacks mostly marry blacks, and Asians mostly marry Asians, and then claiming that they are all different spieces.

Creationists used to claim that evolution was not true because you could not prove speciation.

I'd like to point out that as the last two years have shown proof of speciation, creationists are now claiming that speciation is not proof of evolution. Whatever. It's amusing to see people cling to their beliefs. I mean, the church used to believe that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe - now, several hundred years later most people know that to be wrong (there are still some wacko flat earth people today, however).

Evolution is similar to the flat earth syndrome. But I digress.

Here are a few more papers that are NOT about fruit flies (except for the last 3) You guys asked for proof, here it is.:

Rintelen T., Wilson A., Meyer A, & Glaubrecht M. (2004). Escalation and trophic specialization drive adaptive radiation of freshwater gastropods in ancient lakes on Sulawesi, Indonesia. Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences 271, 2541-2549.

Linn C. Jr, Dambroski H., Feder J., Berlocher S., Nojima S, & Roelofs W. (2004)* Postzygotic isolating factor in sympatric speciation in Rhagoletis flies: Reduced response of hybrids to parental host-fruit odors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 17753-17758.

Williams S., Reid D. (2004) Speciation and diversity on tropical rocky shores: a global phylogeny of snails of the genus Echinolittorina. Evolution; international journal of organic evolution 58(10).

Mendelson T., Siegel A., & Shaw K. (2004). Testing geographical pathways of speciation in a recent island radiation. Molecular Ecology 13(12).

Fricke C & Arnqvist G (2004). Divergence in replicated phylogenies: the evolution of partial post-mating prezygotic isolation in bean weevils. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17(6).

Duncan, G., Adler, P., Pruess, K., & Powers, T. (2004). Molecular differentiation of two sibling species of the black fly Simulium vittatum (Diptera: Suimuliidae) based on random amplified polymorphic DNA. Genome 47, 373-379.

Hare, M., Cipriano, F., & Palumbi, S. (2002). Genetic evidence on the demography of speciation in allopatric dolphin species. Evolution 56(4).

Dusfour, I., Linton, Y., Harbach, R., Baimai V., Trung, H., Seng C., Mat, A., & Manguin S. (2004).* Molecular evidence of speciation between island and continental populati of Anopheles (Cellia) sundaicus (Diptera: Culicidae), a principal malaria taxon in southeast Asia. Journal of Medical Entomology 41(3).

Abbott, C. & Double M. (2003). Genetic structure, conservation genetics and evidence of speciation by range expansion in shy and white-capped albatrosses. Molecular Ecology 12(11).

Ogden, R. & Thorpe, R. (2002). Molecular evidence for ecological speciation in tropical habitats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(21), 13612-13615.

Richmond, J. & Reeder, T. (2002). Evidence for parallel ecological speciation in scincid lizards of the Eumeces skiltonaianus species group (Squamata: Scincidae). Evolution 56(7), 1498-1513.

Knight M & Turner G. (2004). Laboratory mating trials indicate incipient speciation by sexual selection among populations of the cichlid fish Pseudotropheus zebra from Lake Malawi. Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences 271(1540), 675-680.

Boake C., McDonald K., Maitra S., & Ganguly R. (2003). Forty years of solitude: life-history divergence and behavioural isolation between laboratory lines of Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16(1), 83-90.

Harini B. & Ramachandra N. (2003). Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization under laboratory condition in Drosophila: evidence for recombinational speciation. BMC Evolutionary Biology 3(1).

Haerty W., Jallon J., Rouault J., Bazin C. & Capy P. (2002). Reproductive isolation in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster from Brazzaville (Congo). Genetica 116(2-3):215-24.

 

[no1tovote4]

Creationists used to claim that evolution was not true because you could not prove speciation.

I'd like to point out that as the last two years have shown proof of speciation, creationists are now claiming that speciation is not proof of evolution. Whatever. It's amusing to see people cling to their beliefs. I mean, the church used to believe that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe - now, several hundred years later most people know that to be wrong (there are still some wacko flat earth people today, however).

Evolution is similar to the flat earth syndrome. But I digress.

Here are a few more papers that are NOT about fruit flies (except for the last 3) You guys asked for proof, here it is.:

Rintelen T., Wilson A., Meyer A, & Glaubrecht M. (2004). Escalation and trophic specialization drive adaptive radiation of freshwater gastropods in ancient lakes on Sulawesi, Indonesia. Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences 271, 2541-2549.

Linn C. Jr, Dambroski H., Feder J., Berlocher S., Nojima S, & Roelofs W. (2004)* Postzygotic isolating factor in sympatric speciation in Rhagoletis flies: Reduced response of hybrids to parental host-fruit odors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 17753-17758.

Williams S., Reid D. (2004) Speciation and diversity on tropical rocky shores: a global phylogeny of snails of the genus Echinolittorina. Evolution; international journal of organic evolution 58(10).

Mendelson T., Siegel A., & Shaw K. (2004). Testing geographical pathways of speciation in a recent island radiation. Molecular Ecology 13(12).

Fricke C & Arnqvist G (2004). Divergence in replicated phylogenies: the evolution of partial post-mating prezygotic isolation in bean weevils. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17(6).

Duncan, G., Adler, P., Pruess, K., & Powers, T. (2004). Molecular differentiation of two sibling species of the black fly Simulium vittatum (Diptera: Suimuliidae) based on random amplified polymorphic DNA. Genome 47, 373-379.

Hare, M., Cipriano, F., & Palumbi, S. (2002). Genetic evidence on the demography of speciation in allopatric dolphin species. Evolution 56(4).

Dusfour, I., Linton, Y., Harbach, R., Baimai V., Trung, H., Seng C., Mat, A., & Manguin S. (2004).* Molecular evidence of speciation between island and continental populati of Anopheles (Cellia) sundaicus (Diptera: Culicidae), a principal malaria taxon in southeast Asia. Journal of Medical Entomology 41(3).

Abbott, C. & Double M. (2003). Genetic structure, conservation genetics and evidence of speciation by range expansion in shy and white-capped albatrosses. Molecular Ecology 12(11).

Ogden, R. & Thorpe, R. (2002). Molecular evidence for ecological speciation in tropical habitats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(21), 13612-13615.

Richmond, J. & Reeder, T. (2002). Evidence for parallel ecological speciation in scincid lizards of the Eumeces skiltonaianus species group (Squamata: Scincidae). Evolution 56(7), 1498-1513.

Knight M & Turner G. (2004). Laboratory mating trials indicate incipient speciation by sexual selection among populations of the cichlid fish Pseudotropheus zebra from Lake Malawi. Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences 271(1540), 675-680.

Boake C., McDonald K., Maitra S., & Ganguly R. (2003). Forty years of solitude: life-history divergence and behavioural isolation between laboratory lines of Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16(1), 83-90.

Harini B. & Ramachandra N. (2003). Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization under laboratory condition in Drosophila: evidence for recombinational speciation. BMC Evolutionary Biology 3(1).

Haerty W., Jallon J., Rouault J., Bazin C. & Capy P. (2002). Reproductive isolation in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster from Brazzaville (Congo). Genetica 116(2-3):215-24.

Which is just enough evidence for forming a hypothesis that it might also happen on a larger scale. Point being, there is not enough evidence of the evolutionary ladder to be more than a hypothesis. Guessing what fills in the gaps of the missing evidence is exactly hypothesizing not theorizing. Attempting to find the evidence to fill in the gaps is what is necessary and it is theorized in two ways. ID and Evolution. Simply saying the other people are wrong because I believe in my hypothesis is not convincing anybody that you are smarter, just more hard-headed.

 

[CivilLiberty]

"Young Earth" creationists constitute a small, but vocal, minority of all of us who believe in creationism and/or ID. I am not one of them.

I recognize that, and didn't intend to imply in anyway that you were a young earther.




A