Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

[Shogun]

ID is the lazy mans way of avoiding asking the hard questions. As we learn more about the genetics of life, such twaddle becomes less neccessary. It is merely a modern version of "God created it, stop asking so many questions".

• seriously. And, instead of boring the shit out of me with claims about a theory lets see the fucking EVIDENCE.

• cartoon images of jesus riding a triceratops just doesn't impress me.

• First point: The evidences of design are 'design inferences', based on specified complexity, and complexity beyond that which could evolve by small, discreet steps. These intermediates would offer no reproductive advantage, and in most cases cause the organ being modified to stop working. No repro advantage = not becoming fixed in the population, and thus not evolving the complex organ alteration proposed.
  
  Optical systems are one of the best examples. Various biologists, Darwin being one, have proposed that a light sensitive patch invaginated stepwise, becoming eliptical, then circular, then forming a lense, and ultimately a camera eye (insect eyes are totally different). Erik Nilsson in a 1996 paper conjectured that this happened multiple times, in relatively short time periods (a mere 400,000 steps), and in separate lineages. He even termed his estimate 'conservative'.
  
  What Nilsson and the others don't address is the plethora of ancillary mechanisms (iris, aiming musculature, focusing muscles, tear ducts, lense have a variable refractive index, retinal construct including the 'fovea', and the formation of a complex metabolic replentishment systems for the retina to name just a few). Nor do they address how the retina formed into a complex, multilayered receptor grid, with rods and cones, pigments, metabolic refresh channels, and of the glial fibre optic rods between the receptors to transmit single photons without distortion to the photoreceptors.

To begin to understand irreducible complexity, Google 'webvision' and 'retina'.

There are so many co-dependent systems that must function synergistically (co-dependently), that if one were missing, the eye wouldn't function. This example of IC (Irreducible Complexity) is strong evidence of design, NOT Biblical scripture. Are you starting to get it? ...

• Second point: You're citing one of the Young Earth Creationists' ploys. ID is NOT Creationism.

1. "design inferences" is nothing more than another way to say "bullshit we made up to fit our predetermined opinions". Just because something is more complex than your ability to fathom doesn't mean it's a product of puff the magic dragon. This is why we have EVIDENCE instead of bullshit inference. Assumptions are not science.

So, again, spare me the bullshit and produce the physical evidence like I can whip out fossils du jour. I'm just not interested in the notecard speech recited at the laughable creation museums.


2. You keep telling yourself that.

 

[rdean]

ID is the lazy mans way of avoiding asking the hard questions. As we learn more about the genetics of life, such twaddle becomes less neccessary. It is merely a modern version of "God created it, stop asking so many questions".

• seriously. And, instead of boring the shit out of me with claims about a theory lets see the fucking EVIDENCE.

• cartoon images of jesus riding a triceratops just doesn't impress me.

• First point: The evidences of design are 'design inferences', based on specified complexity, and complexity beyond that which could evolve by small, discreet steps. These intermediates would offer no reproductive advantage, and in most cases cause the organ being modified to stop working. No repro advantage = not becoming fixed in the population, and thus not evolving the complex organ alteration proposed.
  
  Optical systems are one of the best examples. Various biologists, Darwin being one, have proposed that a light sensitive patch invaginated stepwise, becoming eliptical, then circular, then forming a lense, and ultimately a camera eye (insect eyes are totally different). Erik Nilsson in a 1996 paper conjectured that this happened multiple times, in relatively short time periods (a mere 400,000 steps), and in separate lineages. He even termed his estimate 'conservative'.
  
  What Nilsson and the others don't address is the plethora of ancillary mechanisms (iris, aiming musculature, focusing muscles, tear ducts, lense have a variable refractive index, retinal construct including the 'fovea', and the formation of a complex metabolic replentishment systems for the retina to name just a few). Nor do they address how the retina formed into a complex, multilayered receptor grid, with rods and cones, pigments, metabolic refresh channels, and of the glial fibre optic rods between the receptors to transmit single photons without distortion to the photoreceptors.

To begin to understand irreducible complexity, Google 'webvision' and 'retina'.

There are so many co-dependent systems that must function synergistically (co-dependently), that if one were missing, the eye wouldn't function. This example of IC (Irreducible Complexity) is strong evidence of design, NOT Biblical scripture. Are you starting to get it? ...

• Second point: You're citing one of the Young Earth Creationists' ploys. ID is NOT Creationism.

Wow, the work it took to write down all those words and it's been debunked.

All you need to know is that at the Dover Debacle, Behe, the guy who coined the phrase, "Irreducible Complexity" was asked, "If using the same criteria that categorizes "Intelligent Design" as "science", would "astrology and alchemy" also qualify as "science". Behe was on the stand, in front of a Judge appointed by Bush, and Behe truthfully answered, "Yes".

Behe, the author of "Pandas" admitted that ID was equal to "astrology and alchemy".

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told - science-in-society - 19 October 2005 - New Scientist

WHAT'S YOUR SIGN????????????

 

[Old Rocks]

The complexity of the eye is one of the favorites of the ID people. Yet, that was actually answered by Darwin himself over 150 years ago. And the answer remains the same today. If these steps were simply to complex for nature to create by natural means, how come you can find in living animals all of the steps you deny could exist?

That is correct. You can find all the steps in the development of the eye in presently living creatures.

 

[Old Rocks]

Behe should be ashamed of himself. Virtually all of the steps that he claimed as irreducible, had already been shown to be otherwise in peer reviewed journals of biology prior to the publication of his nonsense.

 

[rdean]

Behe should be ashamed of himself. Virtually all of the steps that he claimed as irreducible, had already been shown to be otherwise in peer reviewed journals of biology prior to the publication of his nonsense.

Behe is the first mage of the "mystical creationists". He made a lot of money off their ignorance. Worse, he was trapped in a witness stand and actually had to tell the truth.

Imagine, sitting on the witness stand in front of America and telling all his followers that the tripe he had been selling them was just that, "tripe". Out of his own mouth, ID is EQUAL to "astrology".

In many ways, Behe is very much like Sarah Palin. She tells her followers whatever they want to hear. Every trite and true over used sound byte. Behe, categorizing astrology and ID together as equals so he can't possibly take either seriously, yet he pushes that claptrap and Republican masses eat it up so much, they even want to "teach" it as an alternative to "science". So desperately they want to believe, they cripple and indoctrinate their own children opening them up to ridicule and outright laughter. Behe, like a true Republican is getting lots of money. So the damage he is causing is worth it. After all, Republicans pray at the alter of Jesus Dollar.

 

[Diuretic]

ID is Creationism. Both are a load of old bollocks.

 

[52ndStreet]

The Universe it self was created. The Big bang theory scientist, are all accepting the fact of a creative
force that sparked the Big Bang!

Many evolutionist can not explain how the proteins that make up the many different forms of living tissue, turn on , or how they know when to differentiate into specified tissue for the organism.

Darwin could never fully explain an evolutionary process for tissue protein initiation in living organism.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Universe it self was created. The Big bang theory scientist, are all accepting the fact of a creative
force that sparked the Big Bang!

Many evolutionist can not explain how the proteins that make up the many different forms of living tissue, turn on , or how they know when to differentiate into specified tissue for the organism.

Darwin could never fully explain an evolutionary process for tissue protein initiation in living organism.

Darwin addressed tissue protein initiation in his lifetime? Really!

No, the many extroidenially complex molecular interactions in life are not at present understood. After all, DNA was discovered in my lifetime.

But the scientists are working on this and many other fascinating processes within biology.

 

[Cyrano]

Firstly, is there any evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer?

It seems to me that Intelligent Design is just an arbitrary assertion with no scientific grounding. And what is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

 

[geauxtohell]

seriously. And, instead of boring the shit out of me with claims about a theory lets see the fucking EVIDENCE.

cartoon images of jesus riding a triceratops just doesn't impress me.

That would be hard since it would be virtually impossible to come up with a hypothesis for Intelligent Design and methodology to test the hypothesis that could fit within the scientific method.

The best they can do, it simply use scientific theories to make negative arguments without offering a valid, workable, scientifically sound alternative. That is not good science.

Even with that, the proponents of Intelligent Design have embarrassed themselves. Behe's "irreducible complexity" "theory" was completely shredded at the Dover trial (by lawyers no less, who with no formal science background, were able to point out the flaws in Behe's theory).

That is why Intelligent Design organizations like "The Discovery Institute" dump all their money into PR and not bench science. They simply know they can't conduct any scientific work that would be published (without "cheating"). At there heart, they are a political movement, not a scientific one. As proof, I offer the "Wedge Document".

It doesn't matter if 99% of Americans subscribe to ID as a legitimate scientific theory, the scientific community will never accept it. So even if people choose to pollute their children's minds with such crap, they are only going to get straightened out when they reach the University by those who actually know what the hell they are talking about (assuming they go to college).

 

[☭proletarian☭]

ID is NOT Creationism.

Say the creationists who don't want to admit they want religion in the classroom

 

[geauxtohell]

• First point: The evidences of design are 'design inferences', based on specified complexity, and complexity beyond that which could evolve by small, discreet steps. These intermediates would offer no reproductive advantage, and in most cases cause the organ being modified to stop working. No repro advantage = not becoming fixed in the population, and thus not evolving the complex organ alteration proposed.

• 
  
  Which assumes that every mutation has to be beneficial. That is not the case, and has never been claimed to be the case. Evolution is not directional. Thus, organisms that inherit a deleterious mutation go extinct.
  
  Once again: small changes over millions of years.
  
  

  Optical systems are one of the best examples. Various biologists, Darwin being one, have proposed that a light sensitive patch invaginated stepwise, becoming eliptical, then circular, then forming a lense, and ultimately a camera eye (insect eyes are totally different). Erik Nilsson in a 1996 paper conjectured that this happened multiple times, in relatively short time periods (a mere 400,000 steps), and in separate lineages. He even termed his estimate 'conservative'.
  
  What Nilsson and the others don't address is the plethora of ancillary mechanisms (iris, aiming musculature, focusing muscles, tear ducts, lense have a variable refractive index, retinal construct including the 'fovea', and the formation of a complex metabolic replentishment systems for the retina to name just a few). Nor do they address how the retina formed into a complex, multilayered receptor grid, with rods and cones, pigments, metabolic refresh channels, and of the glial fibre optic rods between the receptors to transmit single photons without distortion to the photoreceptors.

Darwin was wrong about many things. Hard to blame the man, considering the field of molecular biology was virtually non-existent.

Other than that, the evolution of the eye has been addressed repeatedly by science.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

There are so many co-dependent systems that must function synergistically (co-dependently), that if one were missing, the eye wouldn't function. This example of IC (Irreducible Complexity) is strong evidence of design, NOT Biblical scripture. Are you starting to get it? ...

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

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/upload/2006/06/Retina.jpeg

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.

• 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".

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

 

[blu]

I saw a show the other night about the how scientist were at a lost to explain the tremendous amount of new species of animals and plants that suddenly appeared during the Cambian period millions of years ago on Earth.

They stated the info from the fossils , puts in question Darwins theory of Evolution. Darwins theory states that species developed from small single cell life forms , to more
complex advanced life forms. "From the bottom up".

The intelligent design theory, which the Cambian period in the Earths development shows,was from the "Top down". Which showed that they were many complex life forms
already developed, that then evolved into more complex life form. And this indicates some form of intelligent design with regards to life forms here on Earth.

The program stated that Darwin could never fully explain the abundance of new life forms
that were on the Earth during this Cambain period. And he felt it would eventually challenge his theory of evolution and natural selection.

I for one accept the intelligent design theory. It seems more logical and practical for todays world and for the world of the past.

Any other opinions?

not trolling. you really just should delete this thread to save yourself from disgrace. the docu you watched was from the Discovery Institute and headed by stephen myers. both this group and stephen are known to be liars & cheats that are out to make money off their crap "science". even the site teh video showed on was just a bunch of ads aimed towards the crowd inclined to believe. steven is also completely ignored and discredited in the science community after trying to pass by non-peer reviewed data and basically just making up shit as he went along in "research papers"

 

[geauxtohell]

I saw a show the other night about the how scientist were at a lost to explain the tremendous amount of new species of animals and plants that suddenly appeared during the Cambian period millions of years ago on Earth.

They stated the info from the fossils , puts in question Darwins theory of Evolution. Darwins theory states that species developed from small single cell life forms , to more
complex advanced life forms. "From the bottom up".

The intelligent design theory, which the Cambian period in the Earths development shows,was from the "Top down". Which showed that they were many complex life forms
already developed, that then evolved into more complex life form. And this indicates some form of intelligent design with regards to life forms here on Earth.

The program stated that Darwin could never fully explain the abundance of new life forms
that were on the Earth during this Cambain period. And he felt it would eventually challenge his theory of evolution and natural selection.

I for one accept the intelligent design theory. It seems more logical and practical for todays world and for the world of the past.

Any other opinions?

not trolling. you really just should delete this thread to save yourself from disgrace. the docu you watched was from the Discovery Institute and headed by stephen myers. both this group and stephen are known to be liars & cheats that are out to make money off their crap "science". even the site teh video showed on was just a bunch of ads aimed towards the crowd inclined to believe. steven is also completely ignored and discredited in the science community after trying to pass by non-peer reviewed data and basically just making up shit as he went along in "research papers"

Well, that explains the lack of citation.

 

[52ndStreet]

Read through some of my post to find the scientific evidence you require.

 

[geauxtohell]

Read through some of my post to find the scientific evidence you require.

Why? It's a massive waste of time. Since the scientific method makes no provisions for the supernatural, ID is not science. It's a simple as that.

You can call it a philosophy or a branch of Christian Apologist thought, but it is not science.

This is a procedural issue, not a substance one.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

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.

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

 

[Lee Bowman]

• First point: The evidences of design are 'design inferences', based on specified complexity, and complexity beyond that which could evolve by small, discreet steps. These intermediates would offer no reproductive advantage, and in most cases cause the organ being modified to stop working. No repro advantage = not becoming fixed in the population, and thus not evolving the complex organ alteration proposed.

• 
  
  - - "Which assumes that every mutation has to be beneficial. That is not the case, and has never been claimed to be the case. Evolution is not directional. Thus, organisms that inherit a deleterious mutation go extinct."
  
  - - "Once again: small changes over millions of years."
  
  Time alone won't do it, since ALL alterations would not be beneficial, and would not build a complex system. There would be absolutely no reproductive advantage for most of the intermediate steps.
  
  

  Optical systems are one of the best examples. Various biologists, Darwin being one, have proposed that a light sensitive patch invaginated stepwise, becoming eliptical, then circular, then forming a lense, and ultimately a camera eye (insect eyes are totally different). Erik Nilsson in a 1996 paper conjectured that this happened multiple times, in relatively short time periods (a mere 400,000 steps), and in separate lineages. He even termed his estimate 'conservative'.
  
  What Nilsson and the others don't address is the plethora of ancillary mechanisms (iris, aiming musculature, focusing muscles, tear ducts, lense have a variable refractive index, retinal construct including the 'fovea', and the formation of a complex metabolic replentishment systems for the retina to name just a few). Nor do they address how the retina formed into a complex, multilayered receptor grid, with rods and cones, pigments, metabolic refresh channels, and of the glial fibre optic rods between the receptors to transmit single photons without distortion to the photoreceptors.

- - "Darwin was wrong about many things. Hard to blame the man, considering the field of molecular biology was virtually non-existent."

"Other than that, the evolution of the eye has been addressed repeatedly by science."

You cited a link to a summation of Erik Nilsson's 1994 research paper. It didn't go nearly far enough, as David Berlinski and I have shown in several published pieces. Google 'berlinski' and 'nilsson' (the blog won't let me provide links at this time).

Dawkins' critique of the paper was not just complementary, but somewhat jubilant over it, saying it was a computer simulation backing eye evolution. He did qualify that by asking for a more detailed computer simulation, with details of the inner workings (metabolic replentishment, photoreceptors, data processing, repair functions). In the ~ 15 years since, that has not occurred. Google 'scribd' and 'get those peepers' for one of the few remaining reprints of 'peepers'.

Finally, don't miss one of the youtube versions. Search at youtube 'evolution of eyes'. Nice presentation, but without substance. My summation still stands.

 

[52ndStreet]

• First point: The evidences of design are 'design inferences', based on specified complexity, and complexity beyond that which could evolve by small, discreet steps. These intermediates would offer no reproductive advantage, and in most cases cause the organ being modified to stop working. No repro advantage = not becoming fixed in the population, and thus not evolving the complex organ alteration proposed.

• 
  
  - - "Which assumes that every mutation has to be beneficial. That is not the case, and has never been claimed to be the case. Evolution is not directional. Thus, organisms that inherit a deleterious mutation go extinct."
  
  - - "Once again: small changes over millions of years."
  
  Time alone won't do it, since ALL alterations would not be beneficial, and would not build a complex system. There would be absolutely no reproductive advantage for most of the intermediate steps.
  
  

  Optical systems are one of the best examples. Various biologists, Darwin being one, have proposed that a light sensitive patch invaginated stepwise, becoming eliptical, then circular, then forming a lense, and ultimately a camera eye (insect eyes are totally different). Erik Nilsson in a 1996 paper conjectured that this happened multiple times, in relatively short time periods (a mere 400,000 steps), and in separate lineages. He even termed his estimate 'conservative'.
  
  What Nilsson and the others don't address is the plethora of ancillary mechanisms (iris, aiming musculature, focusing muscles, tear ducts, lense have a variable refractive index, retinal construct including the 'fovea', and the formation of a complex metabolic replentishment systems for the retina to name just a few). Nor do they address how the retina formed into a complex, multilayered receptor grid, with rods and cones, pigments, metabolic refresh channels, and of the glial fibre optic rods between the receptors to transmit single photons without distortion to the photoreceptors.

- - "Darwin was wrong about many things. Hard to blame the man, considering the field of molecular biology was virtually non-existent."

"Other than that, the evolution of the eye has been addressed repeatedly by science."

You cited a link to a summation of Erik Nilsson's 1994 research paper. It didn't go nearly far enough, as David Berlinski and I have shown in several published pieces. Google 'berlinski' and 'nilsson' (the blog won't let me provide links at this time).

Dawkins' critique of the paper was not just complementary, but somewhat jubilant over it, saying it was a computer simulation backing eye evolution. He did qualify that by asking for a more detailed computer simulation, with details of the inner workings (metabolic replentishment, photoreceptors, data processing, repair functions). In the ~ 15 years since, that has not occurred. Google 'scribd' and 'get those peepers' for one of the few remaining reprints of 'peepers'.

Finally, don't miss one of the youtube versions. Search at youtube 'evolution of eyes'. Nice presentation, but without substance. My summation still stands.

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.!!?