The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[Admiral_Bobski]

Okay. But who says? Seems to me it's the same question as in both cases you have to explain how something new was created...Big speciation can be explained by evolution. But just because evolution explains new things at one level, should demand it to operate at another level... where it cannot explain new life forms?...Over historical time and at the everyday level of the naturalist evolution makes sense. But when you peer at the chemistry, nature at the smallest scale, evolution doesn't.

I would disagree with you on this one. Evolution need not explain the Origin of Life in the same way that Relativity need not explain the singularity of a Black Hole - Evolution's remit is to explain the change of life, and it can not (and never claimed to be able to) explain the origin of life itself. Nobody demands that relativity explain the realm of the very small - we've got another theory for the very small in quantum mechanics. The Origin of Life itself would require a separate theory, I would think.

I'm not sure about this concept that Evolutionary theory doesn't work at the smallest scale either. Just because the flagellum is one particular point of contention doesn't invalidate the evolutionary theory - there are other microscopic organisms which can be sufficiently explained.

Unless you subscribe to Universal Darwinism you should already be comfortable with the fact that at some point evolution stops and laws of physics and chemistry take over.

Obviously. But surely that line would be drawn at the atomic level, or the level of individual molecules - even a creature as small as the flagellum has a fair few molecules to it...

This is what you seem to miss. Darwinism is not rendered false in the intelligent design worldview, it's just not all supreme. That is, nobody should deny that the evolutionary, Darwinian explanation explains, for example, the (man-induced) evolution of sheep from its sheep ancestor. The evolutionary explanation, that observable genetic traits were selected and spread in frequency until the daughter population was sufficiently far from the mother to be a new species, makes sense.

Well, IDers tend to claim that Darwinism is rendered false. The problem is that IDers accept Evolution up to a point only because the process of adaptation is observed and, therefore, indisputable. They refuse to accept that speciation can legitimately be the result of progressive adaptation - once two groups of the same species have adapted enough they become physiologically distinguishable from one another. So although this process makes sense - as you say - IDers don't accept speciation as something which actually occurs.

So, by your own acceptance of the process of speciation you cannot possibly accept the concept of Intelligent Design as it is presented...

CB

[PersianPaladin]

This is what you seem to miss. Darwinism is not rendered false in the intelligent design worldview, it's just not all supreme. That is, nobody should deny that the evolutionary, Darwinian explanation explains, for example, the (man-induced) evolution of sheep from its sheep ancestor.

Darwinism has not been proven, its just a theory. Natural selection does not create new species or genetic material, it simply creates phenotypic variations ('races') within the same species. No real-world evidence of speciation from natural selection exists or has existed.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Darwinism has not been proven, its just a theory. Natural selection does not create new species or genetic material, it simply creates phenotypic variations ('races') within the same species. No real-world evidence of speciation from natural selection exists or has existed.

See?

CB

[Red Raven]

Darwinism has not been proven, its just a theory. Natural selection does not create new species or genetic material, it simply creates phenotypic variations ('races') within the same species. No real-world evidence of speciation from natural selection exists or has existed.

How do you explain the remnants of a tail in every human? How do you explain the existace of the newt that has legs that are gradually (through the process of evolution) turning to fins? Evidence (imperical and measuarable evidence) is everywhere. There is no evidence of any kind that inteligent design is at work.

[PersianPaladin]

How do you explain the remnants of a tail in every human? How do you explain the existace of the newt that has legs that are gradually (through the process of evolution) turning to fins? Evidence (imperical and measuarable evidence) is everywhere. There is no evidence of any kind that inteligent design is at work.

I already discussed the issue of the tailbone and how it is neccessary for the human body in terms of organ support. As for newts, well, they are amphibians and wouldn't the evolution of their legs into fins place them at a disadvantage in terms of their flexibility and coverage of habitat? It's more like a regression than the progressive 'advantage' which darwinian evolution states.

Wibs....the 'butterfly' link was already posted. Please read the thread fully.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Wibs....the 'butterfly' link was already posted. Please read the thread fully.

Or what?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Thanks for your reply CB. Can't add much new to most of what was said but I can clarify my position.

So, by your own acceptance of the process of speciation you cannot possibly accept the concept of Intelligent Design as it is presented...

CB

Darwinists cannot accept their theory as a law which has created all life forms on Earth while "cellular husbandry" of the flagellum eludes them.

That's the most powerful thing implied in what I said. If evolution by natural selection is not a law then Darwinism is toppled.

Evolution might appear to be a useful way of explaining the origin of new forms of life 99% of the time but if it can't explain all life forms, as good as its achievements are, it can't be a "law."

What alternative to evolution is there? Intelligent design. That is why Darwinists are so resistent: if Darwinism does not explain all life by blind variation, selection and heredity the door is left open to a Creator.

Wibs - you can get a lot of change without speciation. That is why it's arguable - because scientists can't agree on what a species is - whether speciation has ever been observed by man. On some definitions even the sheep which can no longer have offspring with its direct ancestor is not a separate species.

"the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require-but cannot be settled by-empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003)

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Sorry Wibs, I thought I'd responded to your link. I'll try harder this time!

That BBC article does not prove evolution. The title was written by the sub-editor.

The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria.

Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific.

But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population.

This is change in gene frequencies within a species - the genes that make the butterfly more resistent to parasites have become more common.

It's interesting but it's not speciation. The article doesn't claim it is.

cientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly.

Edited July 15, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Cheeseburger]

No Wibs, not silly you, silly them . Calm down people

I found the link very intersting, so thank you for posting it

Edited July 15, 2007 by Cheeseburger

[Osbourne One-Nil]

If I may make a slightly off-topic observation (and it's one that I could make in any number of threads recently), but there seems to be an increasing tendancy to waffle on in these threads, use long words and try and outdo each other's intellect. Frankly, I don't see the point as all that ends up happening is alientating many members who might like to contribute, and basically ensure that you're talking to those who have already made their minds up on the subject.

Knowledge is great, but unless you can express yourself in a way that other people can understand, then it's really pretty worthless. So if an effort could be made to make the points understandable by most people, I think there are many that would appreciate it.

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, and I'm not asking anyone to dumb down, but merely express themselves more clearly.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Darwin's 1859 book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Wibs, if evolution was just a matter of a change in gene frequencies it would be proved every time you had a grand children.

Edited July 15, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Then what is the article that Wibs has posted saying?

[Andy H]

If I may make a slightly off-topic observation (and it's one that I could make in any number of threads recently), but there seems to be an increasing tendancy to waffle on in these threads, use long words and try and outdo each other's intellect. Frankly, I don't see the point as all that ends up happening is alientating many members who might like to contribute, and basically ensure that you're talking to those who have already made their minds up on the subject.

Knowledge is great, but unless you can express yourself in a way that other people can understand, then it's really pretty worthless. So if an effort could be made to make the points understandable by most people, I think there are many that would appreciate it.

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, and I'm not asking anyone to dumb down, but merely express themselves more clearly.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Then what is the article that Wibs has posted saying?

That a gene or genes that suppressed a parasite in males of the species Hypolimnas bolina had recently become more common resulting in an increase of males in the population from 1% to nearly 50%.

[flagpole]

:wacko:

It's ok Andy, I'll make it simpler for you.

In the beginning there were blobs, these blobs developed into different blobs, bigger, better more complex blobs! Graduallly the blobs took shape! they became early life forms! They oozed their way out of the mud and developed individual features! Legs, arms, wings, etc.

Through the years these ex-blobs become more and more complex. Some develop intelligence, they begin using tools, they build things, learn things, create all sorts of wondrous thing! They become humans! Some don't.

[Red Raven]

I already discussed the issue of the tailbone and how it is neccessary for the human body in terms of organ support. As for newts, well, they are amphibians and wouldn't the evolution of their legs into fins place them at a disadvantage in terms of their flexibility and coverage of habitat? It's more like a regression than the progressive 'advantage' which darwinian evolution states.

Wibs....the 'butterfly' link was already posted. Please read the thread fully.

You might have discussed the tail bone but your explanation is rather poor to say the least. Its like saying we evolved a torso to keep the brain in.

Yep newts maybe at a disadvantage but evolution doesn't mean the best solution is found ....or was it god that made a bit of a balls up - certainly not so intelligent there! :wacko:

Edited July 15, 2007 by Red Raven

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks for your reply CB. Can't add much new to most of what was said but I can clarify my position.

Darwinists cannot accept their theory as a law which has created all life forms on Earth while "cellular husbandry" of the flagellum eludes them.

That's the most powerful thing implied in what I said. If evolution by natural selection is not a law then Darwinism is toppled.

Evolution might appear to be a useful way of explaining the origin of new forms of life 99% of the time but if it can't explain all life forms, as good as its achievements are, it can't be a "law."

I don't think Evolution has ever been claimed to be a Scientific Law, only a Theory. And it's a Theory which works 99% of the time, which makes it a pretty darned good theory. And it's not so much that it doesn't actually work the remaining 1% of the time, it's just that it becomes rather more complicated and harder to prove.

If Evolution (including Natural Selection) only purports to be a Theory then the fact that it isn't a Law has no bearing on its validity. (Or, to put it more simply for those who may find my long words confusing, "Darwinism is toppled? What a load of old bobbins!" :wacko: )

Night everyone!

CB

[acbrixton]

Let me set you all straight on these matters.

God created the world in 1927.

Nonsense Roger. As you well know this matter was settled for all time by James Ussher (Archbishop of Armagh and Anglican Primate of all Ireland) who in his two Old Testament chronologies published in 1650 and 1654 revealed that the earth was created at nightfall on 23rd October 4004 BC.

Regards

ACB

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I don't think Evolution has ever been claimed to be a Scientific Law, only a Theory. And it's a Theory which works 99% of the time, which makes it a pretty darned good theory.

I'd agree with this.

And it's not so much that it doesn't actually work the remaining 1% of the time, it's just that it becomes rather more complicated and harder to prove.

Someone would say "impossible" to prove. Guess who?

If Evolution (including Natural Selection) only purports to be a Theory then the fact that it isn't a Law has no bearing on its validity.

But it does have a bearing on the ID debate. We should be free to discuss competing theories and teach the best of them to our children.

There are Darwinians don't believe in this freedom. They argue the debate has ended and there never will be a better theory of life to teach our children than that which Darwin spawned.

(Or, to put it more simply for those who may find my long words confusing, "Darwinism is toppled? What a load of old bobbins!" :wacko: )

Night everyone!

CB

Good night!

BTW on further research - (sorry I'm not an expert and yet I do (as one should) have an opinion on this, especially on a public forum).

I've discovered the bacterial flagellum has about 40 genes and, according to a debunking video, about 50 parts (although if I remember the video at the start of this thread said "80").

It's a very complex, simple, amazing little machine.

The claimed evolutionary precusor to the bacterial flagellum, the celullar speed boat, is the "type III secretory system", a cellular syringe, which has 10 genes, and shares all 10 with the BF. (Evolutionary theory does not rule out the TIIISS could have evolved from the BF.)

The TIIISS is another cool micromachine.

Darwinists have not explained how either evolved or how one machine evolved into or from the other machine, presumably with many other different types of machines inbetween (slow, gradual evolution. Since these nano-bots are so fine tuned one lost part would stop it functioning, so all intermediate stages would have to be selected for a different function.)

If it's possible to get from A - B evolutionists need to do more than show where A and B is on the map. With such small things, with many separate stages and different intermediate machines with different functions, we're looking at a timespan of billion of years, at the end of which we are left with TIIISS and the more complex BF.

Edited July 16, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Admiral_Bobski]

There are Darwinians don't believe in this freedom. They argue the debate has ended and there never will be a better theory of life to teach our children than that which Darwin spawned.

I think most Evolutionists would be happy with the teaching of an alternate or complementary theory if one existed! As has been said before, Intelligent Design isn't actually a theory - a theory needs to offer a fully self-consistent explanatory framework for a mechanism, and one that needs to be potentially falsifiable.

ID is not falsifiable, since it relies on the existence of some unseen and unseeable Creator, the existence of whom can be neither proved nor disproved. Any objections to the "Theory" can be shrugged off by invoking this Creator concept. Nor does ID offer a self-consistent explanatory framework - in fact it doesn't offer any explanatory framework, it basically just says "God made everything". (You can replace the word "God" with "Creator" or "Intelligent Designer" or "Alien" or whatever you like.)

As I say, I am no biologist and I can't attempt to explain the existence of the flagellum, but I am certain that in time the Evolutionary Biologists will find a sensible way of explaining it... :wacko:

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

Further to the above post, here's a link for you all:

http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Mu...ys/flagella.htm

Describing a possible (if sketchy) evolutionary process for the development of flagella.

:wacko:

CB

[VillagePlank]

The bacterial flagellum as an example for intelligent design?

Well that it is entirely disengenuous to suggest that this represents the natural world as a whole. Indeed scientists were puzzled at how this remarkable structure ever evolved. So, like scientists do, they asked the question and investigated it's implications in Darwinism. I suggest those that have fallen for this e-coli proposition read this. It is unfortunate, that the source of this text looks a little dubious, (being that it exists for political purpose) but the references to the paper, insofar as I could be bothered to follow, check out.

Of course, the e-coli flagellum argument is based on the proposition that because all of the parts work so nicely (and efficiently) together the parts could have served no useful purpose whilst undergoing evolution. This sounds fine and dandy, until someone points out that 'perhaps, when they were evolving, the individual parts didn't have the purpose what we observe today' and then the water gets murky, and the mud-slinging happens again.

It is not enough to say 'Hey look here, how the hell did this evolve, then?' and then when no argument is offered presume that it is defacto proof of intelligent design. That is neither offering evidence, nor argument; simply a stumbling block which, I must add, is easily avoided.

[Azores Hi]

If I may make a slightly off-topic observation (and it's one that I could make in any number of threads recently), but there seems to be an increasing tendancy to waffle on in these threads, use long words and try and outdo each other's intellect. Frankly, I don't see the point as all that ends up happening is alientating many members who might like to contribute, and basically ensure that you're talking to those who have already made their minds up on the subject.

Knowledge is great, but unless you can express yourself in a way that other people can understand, then it's really pretty worthless. So if an effort could be made to make the points understandable by most people, I think there are many that would appreciate it.

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, and I'm not asking anyone to dumb down, but merely express themselves more clearly.

Yeah, i remember when this thread was fun, those were the days eh?

[Admiral_Bobski]

The bacterial flagellum as an example for intelligent design?

Well that it is entirely disengenuous to suggest that this represents the natural world as a whole. Indeed scientists were puzzled at how this remarkable structure ever evolved. So, like scientists do, they asked the question and investigated it's implications in Darwinism. I suggest those that have fallen for this e-coli proposition read this. It is unfortunate, that the source of this text looks a little dubious, (being that it exists for political purpose) but the references to the paper, insofar as I could be bothered to follow, check out.

Of course, the e-coli flagellum argument is based on the proposition that because all of the parts work so nicely (and efficiently) together the parts could have served no useful purpose whilst undergoing evolution. This sounds fine and dandy, until someone points out that 'perhaps, when they were evolving, the individual parts didn't have the purpose what we observe today' and then the water gets murky, and the mud-slinging happens again.

It is not enough to say 'Hey look here, how the hell did this evolve, then?' and then when no argument is offered presume that it is defacto proof of intelligent design. That is neither offering evidence, nor argument; simply a stumbling block which, I must add, is easily avoided.

Well said, VP! One small "problem" (depending upon how you define the word "problem") does not disprove the entire theory of evolution. The fact that IDers always seem to fall back on the flagellum as a supposed "disproof of Evolution" is indicative of how weak the ID argument actually is. No matter how much of their rhetoric is rebutted, it always comes back to "yeah, but look at the flagellum..."

sigh...

CB

Yeah, i remember when this thread was fun, those were the days eh?

LOL! Yes, it is getting a bit tedious, isn't it?

:wacko:

CB

Edited July 16, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

There are Darwinians don't believe in this freedom. They argue the debate has ended and there never will be a better theory of life to teach our children than that which Darwin spawned.

Yes! But, of course, this problem exists on both sides of the debate.

Another great problem in debates such as these is differentiating between the creation of life, and the evolution of life. Both, are entirely different problems. The sooner people accept this, the better, in my opinion.