Homework assignment for proponents of ID

[Nuc]

it's my understanding that ID is really a melding of both Evolution and Evolution being facilitated by an intelligent being, so from that perspective I have no problem with either. If I was dolt enough to actually believe the world was created in six days you would have the right to give me a nuggy.

Or that the world is 6000 years old. Or that dinosaurs never existed, God created the fossils to trick people.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people in this country (and this board) who believe that stuff.

 

[Bonnie]

IDers don't. They justify their belief with an observation that goes something like this: "Life is so complicated that instead of spending time figuring out how it works and why, I'm just going to attribute it to magic."

Or maybe just hold science accountable to actually fill the holes in with hard fact. There are some very intelligent scientists who would disagree with your assessment that everyone who queries into ID just says "well life is complex so lets just go with the magic theory".

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The "magic theory" has a fancy name too. It's called "irreducible complexity." In a nutshell, it states that some biological systems are so complex that they could never have developed through a long progression of natural mutations and instead can only be explained away by attributing them to an intelligent designer, i.e. God. But this is in complete contrast to the theory of natural selection, which states that complex bioligical systems did develop through a long progression of environmentally advantageous adaptations/mutations.

Read: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett05/dennett05_index.html

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Or maybe just hold science accountable to actually fill the holes in with hard fact. There are some very intelligent scientists who would disagree with your assessment that everyone who queries into ID just says "well life is complex so lets just go with the magic theory".

To quote myself...

The ID argument that "all questions can't be answered by evolutionary theory" is invalid. Just because we don't currently understand EVERYTHING doesn't invalidate the theory! New scientific discoveries are made everyday! Which is a lot more than I can say for ID.

 

[archangel]

The "magic theory" has a fancy name too. It's called "irreducible complexity." In a nutshell, it states that some biological systems are so complex that they could never have developed through a long progression of natural mutations and instead can only be explained away by attributing them to an intelligent designer, i.e. God. But this is in complete contrast to the theory of natural selection, which states that complex bioligical systems did develop through a long progression of environmentally advantageous adaptations/mutations.

Read: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett05/dennett05_index.html

both fall into the category of "Hypothesis" a educated guess mind ya...nice try in a general sense! :coffee3:

 

[Bonnie]

The "magic theory" has a fancy name too. It's called "irreducible complexity." In a nutshell, it states that some biological systems are so complex that they could never have developed through a long progression of natural mutations and instead can only be explained away by attributing them to an intelligent designer, i.e. God. But this is in complete contrast to the theory of natural selection, which states that complex bioligical systems did develop through a long progression of environmentally advantageous adaptations/mutations.

It states a bit more than just that




Intelligent Design position statement
The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
By Michael J. Behe

Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.
Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?
How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.
Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.
Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.

Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.
Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.
Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.
Molecular machines are designed.


Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.
I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.


Elusive Icons of Evolution
What do Darwin's finches and the four-winged fruit fly really tell us?
By Jonathan Wells
Many features of living things appear to be designed.
Charles Darwin wrote in 1860 that "there seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows." Although many features of living things appear to be designed, Darwin's theory was that they are actually the result of undirected processes such as natural selection and random variation.

Darwin's finches are one of the "icons of evolution."
Scientific theories, however, must fit the evidence. Two examples of the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution -- so widely used that I have called them "icons of evolution" -- are Darwin's finches and the four-winged fruit fly. Yet both of these, it seems to me, show that Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things.

Finch beaks appear to be adapted to different foods through natural
selection.
Darwin's finches consist of several species on the Galápagos Islands that differ mainly in the size and shape of their beaks. Beak differences are correlated with what the birds eat, suggesting that the various species might have descended from a common ancestor by adapting to different foods through natural selection. In the 1970s, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant went to the Galápagos to observe this process in the wild.
Direct evidence for this was found in the 1970s.
In 1977 the Grants watched as a severe drought wiped out 85 percent of a particular species on one island. The survivors had, on average, slightly larger beaks that enabled them to crack the tough seeds that had endured the drought. This was natural selection in action. The Grants estimated that twenty such episodes could increase average beak size enough to produce a new species.
Modern scientists did not observe new species emerging.
When the rains returned, however, average beak size returned to normal. Ever since, beak size has oscillated around a mean as the food supply has fluctuated with the climate. There has been no net change, and no new species have emerged. In fact, the opposite may be happening, as several species of Galápagos finches now appear to be merging through hybridization.

Natural selection works only within established species.
Darwin's finches and many other organisms provide evidence that natural selection can modify existing features -- but only within established species. Breeders of domestic plants and animals have been doing the same thing with artificial selection for centuries. But where is the evidence that selection produces new features in new species?
Major evolutionary changes require anatomical as well as biochemical changes.
New features require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin's theory, these come from DNA mutations. Most DNA mutations are harmful and are thus eliminated by natural selection. A few, however, are advantageous -- such as mutations that increase antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in plants and animals. Antibiotic and pesticide resistance are often cited as evidence that DNA mutations provide the raw materials for evolution, but they affect only chemical processes. Major evolutionary changes would require mutations that produce advantageous anatomical changes as well.
The four-winged fruit fly is another "icon of evolution."

Normal fruit flies have two wings and two "balancers" -- tiny structures behind the wings that help stabilize the insect in flight. In the 1970s, geneticists discovered that a combination of three mutations in a single gene produces flies in which the balancers develop into normal-looking wings. The resulting four-winged fruit fly is sometimes used to illustrate how mutations can produce the sorts of anatomical changes that Darwin's theory needs.
This fly does not provide evidence for evolution.

But the extra wings are not new structures, only duplications of existing ones. Furthermore, the extra wings lack muscles and are therefore worse than useless. The four-winged fruit fly is severely handicapped -- like a small plane with extra wings dangling from its tail. As is the case with all other anatomical mutations studied so far, those in the four-winged fruit fly cannot provide raw materials for evolution.
Intelligent design should be taught in school.
In the absence of evidence that natural selection and random variations can account for the apparently designed features of living things, the entire question of design must be reopened. Alongside Darwin's argument against design, students should also be taught that design remains a possibility.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

 

[Hagbard Celine]

No, evolution falls into the category of "theory" because there is observable, physical evidence to support it.

There is no evidence to support the existence of an intelligent designer.

 

[archangel]

No, evolution falls into the category of "theory" because there is observable, physical evidence to support it.

There is no evidence to support the existence of an intelligent designer.

"Theory without fact is hypothesis-fact without theory is chaos" being that not all evidence is fact...well I'm going to go get some lunch...as I truly feel we are your homework assignment...hope ya get a A on it....

 

[Bonnie]

No, evolution falls into the category of "theory" because there is observable, physical evidence to support it.

There is no evidence to support the existence of an intelligent designer.

It would seem the proponents of ID have raised some very good points in questioning the merits of evolution beyond just a bunch of snake handling strychnine drinking yahoos, enough to warrant discussions. Now why is the liberal community who is mostly opposed to ID so unwilling to allow a real public debate, afterall liberals are the ones who are so openminded and tolerant of everyone and everything? Why is this so threatening????

 

[Hagbard Celine]

It states a bit more than just that

Haha, I've heard this one before too, but it just doesn't hold up.

So a cell is sooooo complex that it can't be explained away as anything other than a miracle. It's insides are filled with organelles that each do a specific job and if you were to take one away, it would not function properly.

But you assume that every organelle in the system has functioned exactly as it has in a static condition. And you KNOW what happens when you assume...

This assumption is the same as saying, "okay, if I evolved from monkeys, then where's my tail?" Monkeys and humans are different, but similar species that have a common ancestor, which was similar but completely different from humans and monkeys.

Irreducible complexity rests on the assumption that a complex system, like a cell, cannot evolve. But this simply isn't true:

How might an IC system evolve? One possibility is that in the past, the function may have been done with more parts than are strictly necessary. Then an 'extra' part may be lost, leaving an IC system. Or the parts may become co-adapted to perform even better, but become unable to perform the specified function at all without each other. This brings up another point: the parts themselves evolve. Behe's parts are usually whole proteins or even larger. A protein is made up of hundreds of smaller parts called amino acids, of which twenty different kinds may be used. Evolution usually changes these one by one. Another important fact is that DNA evolves. What difference does this make, compared to saying that proteins evolve? If you think about it, each protein that your body makes is made at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right amount. These details are also coded in your DNA (with timing and quantity susceptible to outside influences) and so are subject to mutation and evolution. For our purposes we can refer to this as deployment of parts. When a protein is deployed out of its usual context, it may be co-opted for a different function. A fourth noteworthy possibility is that brand new parts are created. This typically comes from gene duplication, which is well known in biology. At first the duplicate genes make the same protein, but these genes may evolve to make slightly different proteins that depend on each other.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

 

[Hagbard Celine]

For Archangel:
I present, the scientific method. (you may remember this from fourth-grade science class.)

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Scientific Method

 

[dmp]

For Archangel:
I present, the scientific method. (you may remember this from fourth-grade science class.)

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Scientific Method For Idiots

You forgot a part which damages most theories around 'accidental evolution'...macro evolution:

Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature

Your belief of evolution can't be experimented upon, nor can results be shown...the theory cannot be observed nor measured.

It's guesswork...Parts of most common theories around evolution make sense - Species tend to change in some manner, however, Species do not 'somehow' better their genes in order to produce a different - but even related - new species.

Apes won't become 'men'. Never.



Oh...and speaking of science...and chance...

Evolutionists claim that life formed from chemicals. The Law of biogenesis states that life only comes from life. The chance of even a replicating system forming by itself from chemicals is so very small - it's can be called 'zero'. 'None'. I read somewhere it's less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe!

 

[dmp]

Excellent Information:

Probability and Statistics

Darwin was convinced that, given enough time, small changes accumulating over time could account for the transformation of one species into another. Darwin proclaimed it was all a matter of probability. After all, the laws of probability do not preclude any possibility from occurring. Statistically speaking, there is always the chance of something happening. For example, if one were to drive a truck full of coins into an auditorium and dump them of the floor, the coins could all come up heads. However, it is not probable that such would ever happen.

The real question then is not whether or not evolution is possible but whether or not it is probable. The Darwinists claim that time is on their side. They note that the earth is nearly five billion years old and argue that such was enough time for chance mutation to account for the evolution of the entire complex of life in all its myriad forms. However, even considering the age of the universe, Fred Hoyle (1960) wrote that this was not sufficient time for the chance of evolution of the nucleic codes for each of the 2,000 genes that regulate the life processes of the more advanced mammals. In June of 2000, researchers announced that they had sequenced the human genome of the 3.1 billion base pairs, the rungs that make up the ladder-like double helix of DNA. Traditionally it had been assumed that humans had approximately 70,000 genes, and that all mammals had a similar number though not necessarily the same genes. In February of 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium announced that there are about 30,000 to 40,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome, only about twice as many as there are in a worm or fly. Interestingly, there are only a few hundred genes in the human genome that are not in the mouse genome.

Each gene is a sequence of DNA about one thousand nucleotides long, and each nucleotide consists of a sugar, a nitrogen containing base, and a phosphate group. The nucleotides in a DNA chain are linked together through their phosphate groups. According to Hoyle (1960), the probability that the chance occurrence of random mutations could, through the long process of time, accidentally create the complex ordered relationships expressed through the genetic codes could be likened to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 (Woodward, 1988).

In his book, Algeny, Jeremy Rifkin (1984) noted that in the world of mathematics, events whose probability occur within the range of 1/1030 to 1/1050 are considered impossible. In terms of information alone, it is estimated that a one-cell bacterium of E. coli contains the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. There are an estimated four million instructions in the DNA of E. coli. Even in the 'simplest' organisms, the information standard is enormously high (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, 1981). A tiny one-cell organism is definitely something to contend with. George Gaylord Simpson (1967) wrote that the evolutionary journey leading up to the simplest one-cell organism was as impressive as the rest of the evolutionary trip put together.

Apparently, the mathematical odds more than agree with Simpson's analysis. In fact, according to the odds, a one-cell organism is so complex that the likelihood of its coming together by sheer accident and chance is computed to be around 1/1078,000 . Remember, nonpossibility, according to statisticians, is found in the range of 1/1030 to 1/1050 . The odds of a single-cell organism ever occurring by chance mutation are so far out of the ball park as to be unworthy of even being considered on a statistical basis. Such an occurrence, we might add, would be indistinguishable from a miracle. When one moves from the single-cell organism to higher, even more complex forms of life, the statistical probability shifts from to ridiculous to preposterous. Huxley, for example, computed the probability of the emergence of the horse as 1/103,000,000 (ibid., p.154).

According to Denton (1986), the possibility of life arising suddenly on earth by chance is infinitely small. Proteins are strings and coils of between 200 and 1000 amino acids. To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10-20 giving a maximum combined probability of 10-2000. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (1981) provided a similar estimate of the chance of life originating, assuming functional proteins to have a probability of 10-20 . By itself, this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000 an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

Wysong (1976) wrote that the most basic living organism would require 124 proteins of properly sequenced amino acids. The odds of even the simplest living organism forming by chance was 10-78,436. Furthermore, the total probability of the chance formation of the proteins and DNA required by the smallest self-replicating entity is 10-167,626 (Hadd, 1979).

The Darwinian claim that all the adaptive design of nature has resulted from a random search, a mechanism unable to find the best solution in a game of checkers, is one of the most daring claims in the history of science. But it is also one of the least substantiated. No evolutionary biologist has ever produced any quantitative proof that the designs of nature are in fact within the reach of chance (Denton, 1986). Would we believe, for example, that random shuffling of bricks would build a castle or a Greek temple? In the face of mounting evidence, more scientists are abandoning evolution.

more: http://www.quodlibet.net/johnson-evolution.shtml

 

[Abbey Normal]

You forgot a part which damages most theories around 'accidental evolution'...macro evolution:



Your belief of evolution can't be experimented upon, nor can results be shown...the theory cannot be observed nor measured.

It's guesswork...Parts of most common theories around evolution make sense - Species tend to change in some manner, however, Species do not 'somehow' better their genes in order to produce a different - but even related - new species.

Apes won't become 'men'. Never.



Oh...and speaking of science...and chance...

Evolutionists claim that life formed from chemicals. The Law of biogenesis states that life only comes from life. The chance of even a replicating system forming by itself from chemicals is so very small - it's can be called 'zero'. 'None'. I read somewhere it's less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe!

Good point D. If apes have evolved into men, why are there still apes at all? Shouldn't the inferior, changed species (apes) die out, in favor of the superior, evolved species (man)? With all the thousands of apes over thousands of years, when was the last time we found skeletons showing any sort of transition from ape into man? Any proof, or just theories?

 

[dmp]

Good point D. If apes have evolved into men, why are there still apes at all? Shouldn't the inferior, changed species (apes) die out, in favor of the superior, evolved species (man)? With all the thousands of apes over thousands of years, when was the last time we found skeletons showing any sort of transition from ape into man? Any proof, or just theories?

Often, 'scientists' find dead people or dead apes with abnormal features and claim 'look! apeman!'



:-/

 

[Nuc]

Often, 'scientists' find dead people or dead apes with abnormal features and claim 'look! apeman!'



:-/

Did Michael Jackson die?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

In the face of the extremely small statistical probability that life could have sprung up from a primordial ooze, I can only argue that it seems to have happened here.

I'd also like to point out that I am not arguing the origin of life on Earth, I am arguing the validity of evolutionary theory.

To me, it's hard to deny the proof behind evolutionary theory, especially when I look at the fossil record and see the similarities between dinosaurs and modern birds or the similarities between extinct hominids and us. Just compare the hand of a chimp to the hand of a man. Except for the extra hair on the chimp, they're identical.

To anyone I offended today, I apologize. I acknowledge that I'm new here. I've enjoyed today's discourse. This is the most intellectually stimulating forum conversation I've ever had.

If I've been too aggressive, I apologize. I know it doesn't excuse me, but I'm used to other forums out there where it feels like the wild west.

 

[archangel]

For Archangel:
I present, the scientific method. (you may remember this from fourth-grade science class.)

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Scientific Method

is this all about...I noticed you edited out the "For Idiots"" part...I suppose this is just more Liberal bashing of conservatives...the old bring em down to our level sorta thingee...how cute you are! I gave you the benfit of the doubt in here...now I must doubt your sincerity altogether!

 

[Abbey Normal]

Did Michael Jackson die?

Lol. Imagine aliens looking at pictures of Jacko. A new species!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Good point D. If apes have evolved into men, why are there still apes at all? Shouldn't the inferior, changed species (apes) die out, in favor of the superior, evolved species (man)? With all the thousands of apes over thousands of years, when was the last time we found skeletons showing any sort of transition from ape into man? Any proof, or just theories?

Good point. This is the old "if evolution's true, then wheres my tail?" argument. Evolution doesn't state that we evolved from present-day apes. It states that we, both humans and apes, evolved from a common ancestor. In other words, our species branched-off from a common ancestor and took different routes.