Customer Discussions > Science forum

Questions for Intelligent Design Fans


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 7:57:47 AM PDT
"As humanity and civilizations evolved and matured, our capacity to comprehend the world around us also evolved. "

After 4 billion years of evolution, it is your contention that we've only "evolved" and "matured" enough to comprehend Watson and Crick in the last 2000 years? Do you really believe that we are still evolving in the direction of higher intelligence? May be you should take a look at the theory of evolution and figure out what environmental stressors are currently being applied to the billions of welfare state genetic contributors to our chromosomal cesspool.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 9:07:47 AM PDT
Mary Endress says:
"with only a "glimmer" of hope...can you save me Mary????"

The glimmer of hope was that in this forum we wouldn't have to endure yet another person posting drivel about ID. But, Willieboy, I'm afraid as to your personal case any glimmer was the light of the oncoming locomotive.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 10:22:51 AM PDT
WA:

"the scientific method? oh come on now....show me a missing link. Your own scientific method demands it be reproducible, where is it? there should be a mishmash of all animals and neaderthals to homo sapiens."

Please allow me to correct some misconceptions:

1. The concept of a "missing link": There is a common view of evolution as some long ladder, with simple life (amoeba, etc.) at the bottom, and humans at the top, with rung upon rung of intermediate steps - species - between the bottom and the top. When we humans examine the fossil record, we get a sampling of those "rungs", with a "missing link" being a rung we don't have evidence for.

The reality of evolution, of evolutionary theory, is somewhat different... the core of evolution is "populations of imperfect replicators under selection pressure."

replicators - things that copy themselves
imperfect - the copies aren't exactly like the originals
selection pressure - the characteristics of a particular copy make it more or less likely that it successfully makes copies of its own

That is the core of evolution, the fact of evolution, the engine that leads to new species. We see it in the laboratory, in nature, and in certain computer programs which use evolution - genetic algorithms, genetic programming, a-life, etc. That fact is imminently reproducible, by both observation and experiment. Evolution also tends to produce a characteristic pattern, a twin nested hierarchy that we do in fact observe in both experiment and nature, and not the "mismash of all animals and neanderthals" you believe should exist. There is no direction, no pattern, no plan, no preferred direction other than that imposed on a particular copy by its particular characteristics, and the particular environment it finds itself in.

Every species is a transitional species... every life is a "missing link", including us. Fossilization is actually a rare event, and we are lucky to have as many "puzzle pieces" of our evolutionary past as we do... that said, those pieces, and what we observe in life today, are all consistent with life having evolved from common ancestors.

Remember this: the theory of evolution was created to explain the evidence... even if evolutionary theory were somehow shown to be false, that evidence would still have to be explained.

"A "rational person" would realize this and admit defeat. There is the law of ADAPTATION not a THEORY of evolution. if it is indeed fact then why do we keep referring to a "theory". Pavel, your own words defeat you."

Do you understand what the words "law" and "theory" mean in the context of scientific investigation?

In common speech, the word "theory" is synonymous with "guess" or "idea." In the context of "scientific theory", a theory is a body of evidence and reasoning that knits together to form a coherent whole, a whole which also meshes with other theory and observation. It takes a lot of hard work to create a theory, and all theories are tentative in nature, and subject to alteration or even rejection in the face of new evidence. A "law" is just a theory that seems to be unassailable... and that "seems" is what makes the concept of a "law" a flawed one.

Adaptation is an observed phenomena, and is not itself "theory" or "law." Evolution is a fact, in that we observe patterns of phenomena - the changes in populations of imperfect replicators under selection pressure. Evolution is also a theory, as in "evolutionary theory", a body of evidence and reasoning that attempts to explain the how and why of biological evolution.

"I am not that familiar with ID, so save your barbs,..."

In a nutshell, ID is the idea (not a theory in the scientific sense) that the workings of life, past and present, cannot be explained by evolutionary theory, and that some mysterious Intelligence must have been at work to make life come out the way it did. It is, IMO, an argument that seeks to give legitimacy to what is nothing more than ignorance and incredulity, with an added layer of trying to make reality conform to pre-existing ideas as to the nature of the universe in general, and life in particular. It is not science, and it is deeply flawed philosophy.

"... but you do believe in the "Big Bang" right? You believe in Einsteins' work correct?"

I would say "Our Big Bang theory seems to be in accord with the evidence, as is Einstein's work. These theories help us understand how the Universe works, and have been shown to have both explanatory and predictive power." My judgement that these theories are useful is not some article of faith, it is a conclusion based on the evidence. If a better explanation comes along, I'll drop these without a second look.

"Now if God created the big bang and was right there at the center of action then, as the Bible DOES say "a thousand years is a day" then the time dilation from the exploding big bang at each interval of one thousand years (from God's time at center of action) it corresponds exactly with the creation account in Genesis."

And here's where the "let's re-interpret the evidence such that our cherished religious beliefs are supported rather than contradicted" comes into play.

"An Israeli physicist figured this out and I can't take credit for it, but if you are a scientist, interested in the truth, look it up."

You make the claim, therefore the burden of providing the evidence is yours, not ours.

"Daniel Dickson-LaPrade, apparently you missed the recent report that although we mapped the entire genome, it doesn't work as we expected it too!"

That is to be expected... our understanding of how the universe works doesn't stand still, and is expected to change in the face of new evidence. That is one of science's strength, that it, if you'll excuse the expression, evolves to accomodate new evidence.

"each gene has apparently more than one function and 1+1=2 sometimes as we expected and hoped but 1+1=3.1116, and 1+1=2000000000000000000."

Where did these numbers come from, exactly, and how are they relevant to this discussion?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 10:47:18 AM PDT
Deckard says:
T. NGUYEN said:Merging micro- and macro-evo is natural for evolutionists but that's where a person well versed in hard sciences (math/physics/chemistry etc... where equations reign) like me have issues with: microevolution can be observed and repeated therefore proven, but macroevo based on fossil records and taxonomy and morphology, while convincing enough for evolutionists, is not convincing enough for me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What fossils have you studied that you did not like?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 10:53:32 AM PDT
I'm also wondering where the dividing line is between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" (if "macroevolution" is supposed to be "speciation", we've observed speciation in both nature and the lab)... it's like saying there is something fundamentally different between walking for one yard, and walking for one mile. Where is that fundamental difference?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 10:57:20 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 21, 2008 10:56:01 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 12:17:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 5, 2007 12:26:57 PM PDT
I am pleased to see that someone has added a new topic for discussion in this forum, since to tell the truth I am starting to feel that we have said everything there is to say (from all sides) about ID and TE.

So Jacob, perhaps you would care to elaborate on what you refer to as "genetic contributors to our chromosomal cesspool". This could provide an interesting diversion from the endless arguments about evolution and God. So tell us Jacob, who are these billions, and what do you know about their contributions to our gene pool?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 1:31:18 PM PDT
Deckard says:
William said:the scientific method? oh come on now....show me a missing link.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archeopteryx? Almost any trilobite? Almost any ammonite?

Your own scientific method demands it be reproducible, where is it? there should be a mishmash of all animals and neaderthals to homo sapiens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is; part of the TOE is that not all of them survive? Where in ID or in creationism does it address extinction?

A "rational person" would realize this and admit defeat. There is the law of ADAPTATION not a THEORY of evolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain.

if it is indeed fact then why do we keep referring to a "theory".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really want to demonstrate that you do not understand what a theory is? No wonder you have trouble with the scientific method. Do you have similar concerns about plate tectonic theory and quantum mechanic theory?

I am not that familiar with ID, so save your barbs, but you do believe in the "Big Bang" right? You believe in Einsteins' work correct? Now if God created the big bang and was right there at the center of action then, as the Bible DOES say "a thousand years is a day" then the time dilation from the exploding big bang at each interval of one thousand years (from God's time at center of action) it corresponds exactly with the creation account in Genesis. An Israeli physicist figured this out and I can't take credit for it, but if you are a scientist, interested in the truth, look it up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you post a link for us.

Daniel Dickson-LaPrade, apparently you missed the recent report that although we mapped the entire genome, it doesn't work as we expected it too! each gene has apparently more than one function and 1+1=2 sometimes as we expected and hoped but 1+1=3.1116, and 1+1=2000000000000000000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are starting to become more than a little obscure.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 6:12:23 PM PDT
S. Allen says:
"When one trys to talk sense to a group of mental patients (i.e., religious evolutionists), it generally is extremely fruitless regardless of the content. After all, they are mental patients."

Funny you should mention mental patients. I've always considered religious belief to be a kind of mental illness. After all, religious people believe in something that they have no actual proof exists. They just have "faith" and they consider it a GOOD thing if their faith is stronger the less evidence they have of it's veracity. Just as a patient in an asylum has "faith" that they are being spied on by aliens, the fundamentalist has "faith" that every scientist on the planet is wrong and their primitive creation myth is actually true.

:-)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 6:53:04 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 21, 2008 10:56:01 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 8:57:30 PM PDT
John D says:
I was on another forum and saw this one. Maybe I can offer a plausibility argument how a "new species" (which others have pointed out is a human classification description) could develop BECAUSE of adaptation.

Maybe it is better if we can look at it from the animal's perspective rather than the human one, shall we? We can concentrate on animal behavior towards other animals. From that perspective, perhaps it is more "disinterest" in interbreeding that starts varieties/subspecies/strains of animal towards a new species. Many male animals (even some human!) will unfortunately try to mate with, indelicately put, anything! And while yes, there are some visual/auditory cues (e.g. peacock feathers, firefly flashes and cricket chirps), MOSTLY though, the FIRSTLINE identification of "acceptable mate" would presumably be made by the SCENT of the other individual (male or female).

There are 3 different types (perhaps more but less than a handful) of "identifiable" scents recognized by animals, 1) their food source/prey, 2) others of their "own kind" and 3) those of "predators" which prey upon them. Animals have 3 basic responses for the detection of each of those respective scents, 1) pursuit/consume, 2) social interaction (which includes mating) and 3) flight/avoidance, all of which may of course be learned/Pavlovian and/or partly inherited/instinctual.

Now those scents are a complex mixture of excretory, perspiritory, respiratory, and/or salivatory sloughing of immunological and endocrine proteins, hormones and pheromones (and their amino acids and other breakdown products) from exposure to parasitic, viral and bacterial diseases, AS WELL AS diet byproducts (recall how Koalas smell like Eucalyptus). These yield a genetically and environmentally unique signature as the genes code for protein production for a specific individual animal and more broadly, Gaussian spread "unique" for its species. So, individual animals are able to distinguish other individual animals of its own kind (close relatives, mother, father, siblings, cousins) due to similarities in the scent composition AND diet, and so on further away in the genetic relationship by sniffing one another's scent.

However, as genes drift (as NEW diets, new parasitic, viral and bacterial vectors are adapted to change) for groups of the same species that are somehow separated for "some generations" by physical barriers (lets say a volcanic eruption which kills off intervening, interbreeding populations and takes several generations to reclaim), the genetically and environmentally programmed scent MUST change as immunologic, endocrine and hormonal/pheromonal protein composition coded for and diet byproducts, also change. So even if the visual cues (say similar look of Galapagos finches) are there, if scent becomes TOO different, (too far in a Gaussian sense from the "norm") an individual animal cannot recognize/classify the scent of another as falling under prey, own kind, or predator and so its behavior pattern will be one of wariness until it learns what kind of scent this represents. Top of the food chain species will react with more aggression, attack or competition, while bottom of the chain will be more likely to fear/flee.

Perhaps it is THIS, the lack of recognition of an individual as a perspective mating partner, that truly will define the "break" between species. Not whether it is incapable of breeding, but rather whether the individuals of one group are willing, interested or find it desirable, to mate with those of the other group. The interaction then becomes one of fear/flight, mere indifference or attack/competition, rather than one of friendly social and/or mating behaviors. Whimsical aromatic, visual and auditory sexual selection criteria as well as competitive food source, disease vector and predatory selection criteria can then drive them even further apart genetically. This needs no missing links as interbreedABLE groups CAN coexist without mating, but eventually become NON-interbreedable as the mounting changes become too great.

The more rapid the generation time, of course, the more rapid this scent change (from diet and genetic drift) can take place. This could explain why insects have more than a million species while the longer lived mammals only have a few thousand. Otherwise you'd have to say that God has a predeliction for insects over all other types of creatures since He made many more varieties of them!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 9:05:55 PM PDT
TN says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2007 9:25:41 PM PDT
Ways in which speciation can occur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2007 8:32:43 AM PDT
Joaozinho says:
John D, there's a lot of observational and experimental evidence for most of your hypothetical mechanisms (others, not so much or none). You might want to search for the terms "sympatric" and "allopatric" in conjunction with "speciation" and/or "nonassortative mating."

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2007 1:38:45 PM PDT
Mouse says:
I thought this thread was to promote discussion of evidence. I would just like to respectfully request of people to try to understand research and to approach concepts from balanced and credible sources. Go after the research. Further, I don't understand how someone can have the motivation to post 20+ times about something without bothering to go after research. It takes a lot of hard work, but it is worth it! And by research, I mean scientific, testable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed research. This is not the type of research you do for a term paper, and it is not quotes from people with higher degrees in areas other than evolutionary biology. I also don't understand why someone would make a career of publishing books for the layperson on a topic without bothering to take a number of graduate-level courses on it--after all, it is a huge responsibility to get your info and facts straight when so many people are going to be reading it without corroborating any of it (in the PRIMARY literature). For example, I would not read even 10-20 books for the layperson on particle physics, and then assume I understand it and start attacking ideas in electroweak symmetry breaking. And shame on you if I did publish a book on it (with my unrelated Ph.D.) and you listened to me. Back to the EVIDENCE....please, and without personal attacks.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2007 2:34:14 PM PDT
Joaozinho says:
Mouse, the ID side has no evidence. All they do is rhetoric, quote-mining (despite warnings against hearsay in the Bible), and deception.

If the ID folks can produce new data from testing an ID hypothesis, I don't care if they are recorded on a cocktail napkin, as long as they produce some new evidence.

But they have no real faith, so they'll never do anything of the sort--in fact, everything but testing their own hypotheses, which is the essence of the scientific method.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2007 2:40:24 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 21, 2008 10:57:49 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2007 7:21:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 6, 2007 7:29:15 PM PDT
It seems to me that the "Intelligent Design" idea doesn't satisfy the basic requirements of science... it offers no falsifiable hypotheses, it has no explanatory or predictive power (actually, it has too much, as any observation can be explained as "That's the way the Creator wanted it"). This has nothing to do with secularism or humanism, but with the basic methodological requirements of scientific investigation. There are a great many people who see no conflict between evolutionary theory and their personal Theism... atheism is not a requirement one must meet in order to see evolutionary theory as being valid.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2007 7:24:28 PM PDT
John D says:
Thanks for the observation and comments, Smokey. I have looked up some of it, thanks to Michael Altaribba's reference to wikipedia.

I merely wanted to show that even an amateur like myself could come up with a plausibility argument that shows a possible mechanism as to how microevolution (adaptation & genetic drift to varieties, strains and subspecies), which Mr. Nguyen says there is evidence and believes happens, COULD lead to macroevolution (speciation), which the same Mr. Nguyen says cannot happen, WITHOUT the need for "missing links."

The argument relies on KNOWN facts about animals, the biochemistry of their scent coming from genetics and diet/disease adaptation (immunology), and their behavior relating to scent. ANY and ALL of those proposed mechanisms could be laboratory or field tested by any of the smart folks on this forum (or at least repeated by them), or perhaps genetically manipulated or simulated in lab species like fruitflies or mice. It is the way that a science like evolution works. It is NOT like physics. It is more like forensic science. But unlike crimes in forensic science, you can perform lab experiments by recreating some of the conditions or test some of the parts of the hypothesis.

I am a particle physicist by training, so I didn't know whether or not any of the proposed mechanisms have been looked at before or not. I just synthesized the hypothesis as a puzzle with the pieces that we know and try to project a whole pattern from those pieces.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2007 8:15:47 PM PDT
Joaozinho says:
ARM wrote:
"The INTERPRETATION of evidence from the secular humanistic side exhibits bias against anything remotely related to ID."

I was asking what the evidence cited by whoknows was about, not any interpretation in the papers. You see, we real scientists are careful about separating the evidence from speculation about it. Since your "side" produces zero new evidence, you have to pretend that separation doesn't exist.

"Why else would you have to go to a liberal court of law to state your case?"

If you're talking about Dover, the judge is a Republican who was appointed by Shrub, so calling his court "liberal" just makes you look ignorant and/or dishonest.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2007 11:01:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2007 12:25:17 AM PDT
TN says:
John D,

I mentioned your post re. scent to a friend. Interesting concept. It led me to a thought experiment: gather all the finch species of Darwin's famous island Galapagos and put them in a nice large garden planted with their usual food and covered with a screen to form a closed environment. Make accommodation for visitors and charge them money to visit the famous "Darwin Experimental Finch Island" and to watch videos about his famous experiment, maybe some video on TE, and of course sell them China-made artifacts such as Lucy's bones, and games in which players morph from fish to mammal and back to cetacean while eating away their preys.

I bet after a while there will be only one species of finches in that huge caged garden.

That garden would balance out the "Creationist Jurassic Park" somewhere in Florida or Georgia.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2007 6:17:09 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 10, 2008 2:21:54 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2007 6:18:27 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 10, 2008 2:21:54 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2007 8:23:24 AM PDT
S. Allen says:
Since you are still throwing bible quotes around, I don't suppose you are finally going to tell me what the "proper" context is when the god in your bible is ordering mass murder and mass rape are you? Or perhaps you can tell me what the "moral story" is behind a rapist paying off the father of his victim and then marrying her?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2007 8:25:30 AM PDT
S. Allen says:
"its just like evolution: telling yourself something is true over and over and over again doesn't make it so!"

It looks like you misspelled "creationism" above. You accidentally spelled it as "evolution". :-)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
How Differntial Gear Box Works? 16 22 minutes ago
Overwhelming Scientific Evidence for the existence of God 245 3 hours ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 3 5600 3 hours ago
prostate removal 68 5 hours ago
AstroBiology....... The Greatest of the Sciences 10 6 hours ago
Comparing LED bulbs to Incandescent ones still. 93 9 hours ago
CO2 is causing more than warming. 308 10 hours ago
The war to save our society 273 12 hours ago
Draft for President 2016: Robert D. Putnam, For Our Children & Theirs 10 13 hours ago
Why are we forcing Everyday Americans to pay for Science that has no practical payoff? 31 15 hours ago
Do you get the Noble Prize for what you do or how you talk? 9 16 hours ago
best way to take a crap in the woods 23 1 day ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  270
Total posts:  7166
Initial post:  Jul 20, 2007
Latest post:  Apr 11, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 12 customers

Search Customer Discussions