The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[PersianPaladin]

You can say this as much as you want, but it doesn't make it true, and you haven't offered any evidence. If you take this opportunity to reread my last post you will note than mutation is not, generally, the driver of change, crossover is; so why you are fixating on 'destructive' mutation is totally beyond my comprehension. Perhaps it is I that is patently an idiot - I would be certainly happy to accept the mantle.

My recommended reading to you is The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould. A magnus opus by anyone's standards.

I have to ask who do you think you are? Perhaps you'd be happier if we talked of non-linear dynamics, or fractals? (although you did not comment on the notion of punctuated equilibrium, which in terms of Kaufmann physics is right at the top of modern chaos and emergence) I am absolutely certain that great men like Prigogine would disagree with you. And so does the Nobel prize committee.

If I can be so bold, may I respectfully suggest you read his great work 'The End of Certainty'?

No, you are not. You are simply saying that because we do not understand it, it must, therefore, be, by default the work of something of the higher order.

You do not have the luxury of this conclusion unless you fully commit to the notion of belief and faith. Whilst it is foolish for anyone to preclude the existence of a creator if some 'super-intelligence' were involved then you would not be able to imply, nor surmise 'it's' existence primarily because for that to be a reality the intelligence would need to be in a higher dimension to that in which we exist.

It's a bit like 2d man who lives on flat geometric plane talking of sphere's really.

Okay....just saying that I won't be doing any blatant paraphrasing in this post!

Look....we have to look at this with logical reasoning. In the case of genetic cross-over...there is a certain portfolio and configuration of genes that will be passed on from generation to generation from both the male and female. We can see this reflected in the apparent human phenotypes that differ from region to region...e.g. in Africa, Asia, Europe, Poles, etc...with cranial size, nose-bridge width, skin colour, height, etc varying according to the environment. However....this is not the result of evolution; because the potentialities for phenotypical adaptive variation already exist in the genetic portfolio of every single human being around the world. I have just as much melanin as a 'black' person, its just that the cells are not as 'active' in people from cooler regions. Other phenotypical features again have the neccessary configuration and variation of genes for a range in facial features...but this exists as potential within the rich gene pool of humanity. But even here....we cannot escape the principle of Intelligent Design and harmony. Why?

Well...by what harmony and intelligence do such phenotypical\environmental adaptations manage themselves whilst keeping themselves within the orderly confines of the species make-up as a whole? Does nature 'know' that a less broad nose is 'needed' or a mongoloid 'flap' is 'needed' or larger cheekbones are 'needed'? Where is the cut-off point where environmental adaptation within the existing genetic portfolio changes to inter-species evolution (along with brand-new rna and respective organismic configurations)? It simply cannot be random or chance. It is a total absurdity to assume that it is 'chaos'. Chaos does not breed integrity, it breeds the persistence of a mutant disjointed world (even a child would know that...so forget Nobel prize patriarchs)...and quite frankly, we do not see that. For every occasional genetic 'error' via mutation we seem to have a guiding coherence in not only the genetic stability and harmony of a particular species; but also the interactions between it and other species.

The origin of species are related to the origin and apparent evolution of life. You cannot separate the two. Until the evolution of life from the primitiveness of the probiotic soup at lifes birth is solidified as a sound theory.....all the ensuing neo-darwinist theories are pure conjecture and can be dismissed as such.

Edited July 6, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Admiral_Bobski]

It simply cannot be random or chance. It is a total absurdity to assume that it is 'chaos'. Chaos does not breed integrity, it breeds the persistence of a mutant disjointed world (even a child would know that...so forget Nobel prize patriarchs)...and quite frankly, we do not see that.

The highlighted portion above is rubbish. Look at the Mandelbrot Set, the Poster Child for Chaos Theory (if you like):

Order out of chaos in pictoral form.

CB

PS - Happy Birthday for yesterday, PP :o

[VillagePlank]

Right then, let's cut to the chase.

There are three primary operators on our genome: selection, crossover, and mutation.

Selection

Is not some arbitrary random search space. It just isn't. It is simply a term for those more likely to reproduce in a given fitness space will be considered 'selected' That's it. There's nothing more to it. Nothing.

Crossover

Also known as sex, or recombination. In diploid reproduction (the kind which one get's one's rocks off to on a Friday night) it is essential to maintain the variability of the gene pool. Essential. In effect you have a part of the genome that is being combined and an arbitrary locus (allele position along the chromosome) makes the part of the left of that locus combing with the part on the right of the locus. That's it. Nothing more to it. Nothing. Haploid reproduction is slightly different and it is often confusing for beginners when asexual, or haploid reproduction occurs, so we should concentrate on haploid.

Mutation

Effectively the random operator with a probability of mutation so low (typically 0.001 in a probability space between 0..1) that the chance of an allelle being modified due to this is minute. It is known to keep evolving populations away from local fitness peaks and help them strive for the higher parts of the fitness landscape.

There is nothing to argue about crossover, and mutation. These are known medical facts; so well known that it might as well be lay science (you might like to argue that some parts of a chromosome are more mutable than others, but that will figure briefly, and will of no consequence to either side of the argument)

The argument is about selection. You claim that even though, during haploid recombination the offspring, take, as a mean, 50% of the genes from both parents, it doesn't contribute to higher fitness in some cases. This, in my opinon, is not valid. A single genetic source for a subset of a phenotype classification consists, generally, of hundreds of allelles, of which, during crossover will be modified.

It is entirely feasible that this process will create people that have a better chance of reproducing. If the recombination is a bad one, then either the child dies at birth, or the offspring will have some awful condition that might prevent reproduction.

So what part of this, exactly, do you not agree with, PP?

(and your ideas about chaos seem to be a little misplaced, but that's for another time, and another thread, as can the insepererability of the origin of life and the origin of species)

Edited July 6, 2007 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

The highlighted portion above is rubbish. Look at the Mandelbrot Set, the Poster Child for Chaos Theory (if you like):

Order out of chaos in pictoral form.

Not quite. The Mandelbrot set (as well the as the Julia (etc) sets) are examples of mathematics that produce form that is self-similar at all scales which, of course, your picture demonstrates. Incidentally, Henon's strange attractor is, in my opinion, a better example

A better, but more abstract form is the logistic equation which takes the form x=rx(1-x) But as I said on a previous post this is probably best for another thread.

Edited July 6, 2007 by VillagePlank

[M'Lady]

Can't you believe in God and understand that evolution is probably what happened?

Or am I a mutant?

(Answer very carefully...)

[Red Raven]

Can't you believe in God and understand that evolution is probably what happened?

Or am I a mutant?

(Answer very carefully...)

No god doesn't exist or is he the mutant - i get confused.

[VillagePlank]

Can't you believe in God and understand that evolution is probably what happened?

Or am I a mutant?

(Answer very carefully...)

Hmm. Not sure if the question was aimed at me, but, as it's you, I'll answer nevertheless.

I hold the (public) opinion that it is a fools errand to preclude the existence of a creator. My private opinion will remain just that. Private.

I know that the mechanics of evolution work. I use them in software to solve extremely difficult problems in the guise of genetic algorithms. The process works, and the ideas work. There can be no argument about the validity of the claims of the process. The verification of the process as it occurs in nature is, I suspect, what the argument and debate really is.

Whilst many (especially those of a philosophical bent) will no doubt call me the apologetic, I still think that the two, as you and I have both previously mentioned on this thread, do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The main problem, in my eyes is restricting the problem domain, which is why I decided to whittle down the argument to the three evolutionary operators. We can therefore have focus, and the debate might stand a chance of merit, and usefulness.

Unlikely, but you never know ...

[M'Lady]

No god doesn't exist or is he the mutant - i get confused.

I disagree most strongly with both those options. But you are entitled to your opinion.

I suppose.

(Looks like Flaggy was right... I should have stayed out of this.)

Hmm. Not sure if the question was aimed at me, but, as it's you, I'll answer nevertheless.

Thank you darling...

The existence of God and the possiblitiy of evolution are not mutually exclusive. IMO of course!

I'm running away now. *waves*

[PersianPaladin]

Hmm. Not sure if the question was aimed at me, but, as it's you, I'll answer nevertheless.

I hold the (public) opinion that it is a fools errand to preclude the existence of a creator. My private opinion will remain just that. Private.

I know that the mechanics of evolution work. I use them in software to solve extremely difficult problems in the guise of genetic algorithms. The process works, and the ideas work. There can be no argument about the validity of the claims of the process. The verification of the process as it occurs in nature is, I suspect, what the argument and debate really is.

Whilst many (especially those of a philosophical bent) will no doubt call me the apologetic, I still think that the two, as you and I have both previously mentioned on this thread, do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The main problem, in my eyes is restricting the problem domain, which is why I decided to whittle down the argument to the three evolutionary operators. We can therefore have focus, and the debate might stand a chance of merit, and usefulness.

Unlikely, but you never know ...

Yes....but you fail to realise that the computer was programmed, it has an operating system, it has a designer, etc. Same with 'nature' and its apparent 'chaotic' ways.

I feel that a lot of pathological science is conducted to 'support' darwinian evolution. You know...the one where variables that are not understood or are beyond measure are left out and considered as part of a 'chaos' theory. It renders the whole of the ensuing findings invalid. You know...people have written physics programs to prove that the WTC was brought down by bombs AS WELL as physics programs to prove that it was brought down by fire. Both seem to 'work'...but both can be questionned in terms of data input and validity of process.

And your claim about 'crossover'. I have said that this is not evidence for evolution; mainly because there is no species change as a result, and there is no beneficial mutation involved in the development of phenotypical different in environments. It is simply the activation of existing potential gene-combinations that exist within the respective gametes. Still...this does not occur by chance or chaos; it makes sense. What guided this process? Should one apply infinite intelligence to that of a mortal body?

I must reiterate, science has become so up its own posterior that it has lost basic knowledge of sense. How the hell can life have evolve from the primordial ocean with no guiding intelligence? And you can give me statistics and timescales all you want....but the same can be done with a load of monkeys and an inkwell and asking them to write shakespeare. It will never happen....there will just be a LOT of disjointed mistakes scattered about the place.

[VillagePlank]

What guided this process?

As a general rule (and there are exceptions) with reference to human biology it normally is helped quite a bit along by a penis and a vagina, and if your lucky more than a minute of exercise.

You are missing the point. The mechanics of evolution work. That's it. You can argue where the genome actually originates from, and if you chose to do that you are amongst the majority where some assign the origins to God, and some assign them to some hitherto poorly understand science (such as autocatalytic sets)

What you cannot do is pretend that modification of the genome occurs from parent to offspring in terms of huge magnitudes of order when compared to mutation does not happen. It does. It is demonstrable.

it is interesting that you pour scorn on computer models, yet your faith in climate models is apparently unshakeable. Their verification and validation are, in some respects, yet to be measured, yet you prescribe, at great lengths, large amounts of validity therein.

There is now room for three threads: Evolutionary mechanics, Chaos Theory, Existence of God. Whilst it is convenient to obfuscate any clear rational argument by combing all three, I am becoming tiresome of it.

Therefore, I am happy to accept that God might exist. This leaves us with chaos and mechanics. Chaos might provide the answers to the spontaneous appearence of life, and I am happy if you are prepared to just leave it one side.

So, lets just stick to the mechanics. The three sub-headings outlined above, and perhaps you will show how each one is wrong, and can be replaced by intelligence particularly avoiding the argument that it's just too good to be true. (Ask any cancer patient about whether they think that problems with gene replication are serious)

Edited July 6, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Red Raven]

I will have to let someone else provide the evidence as there others that are far more adept at the complex subject.

But, I remember watching a programme on the BBC last year (it may have been Coast) and they reported on the strange seaweed eating sheep on an island (somewhere in Scotland I think). Due to the lord of the manner not wanting sheep on his land they were forced to forage on the beaches and tidal zones and eat what grass they could find, most of the grass was provided by the farmer. However over a period of only 100 years these sheep (or their offspring) evolved to be able to digest seaweed and the subsequent high levels of salt. These sheep now cannot eat grass without risking death - is this not evolution at work responding to a chaotic random situation and making the best of whats available?

[Red Raven]

Found a link

http://www.caithness.org/history/articles/...onaldsaysheep2/

where's edit gone? - found it but its not on the one above!

Edited July 6, 2007 by Red Raven

[VillagePlank]

...is this not evolution at work responding to a chaotic random situation and making the best of whats available?

This demonstrates the mechanics of evolution in the natural world, quite nicely.

The fitness landscape is one where the sheep can metabolise seaweed, and not grass. One (or more) of those sheep primarily through crossover had changes to its genome that probably allowed the production of a protein that breaks the seaweed down into useful stuff (glucose) Those who did not have this protein, say, available could not survive to reproduce and that part of the flocks genome died out leaving those who are fitter for the environment as the survivors.

I'm sure that PP would claim that this is adaptation and not evolution as evolution describes speciation, not adaptation. A more isolated view would be that God directed certain sheep to sleep with other certain sheep in order to make the successful genome occur. I, of course, argue that it is the same mechanics at play, and given time, speciation occurs as an extension of adaptation. An even stronger view, I guess, would be that God does not play dice, but he plays with cytosine, thymine, guamine and adennine (Incidentally, PP, a good argument against evolution is the existence of adenosine triphosphate and its role in the myocin ratchet - I find it peculiar that you haven't raised that one)

I am of the view that if that part of the genome did not already exist (through change that was hitherto not useful, but not dangerous to existence) then the flock would have died out unless an extremely fortuitous mutation occured which is, as I've said before, highly unlikely (remember the probability? 0.001 in a probability space of 0..1)

One must remember that evolution is not as successful as one might at first think. Remember that >99% of the world's species have already died out which means they were unable to adapt, evolve, or speciate.

Edited July 6, 2007 by VillagePlank

[flagpole]

A more isolated view wouldbe that God directed certain sheep to sleep with other certain sheep in order to make the successful genome occur.

I now have a mental image of a sheep dating agency run by a man with a white beard :blink:

[VillagePlank]

I now have a mental image of a sheep dating agency run by a man with a white beard :blink:

That is an amusing, but nevertheless accurate description of intelligent design

[Admiral_Bobski]

Not quite. The Mandelbrot set (as well the as the Julia (etc) sets) are examples of mathematics that produce form that is self-similar at all scales which, of course, your picture demonstrates. Incidentally, Henon's strange attractor is, in my opinion, a better example

A better, but more abstract form is the logistic equation which takes the form x=rx(1-x) But as I said on a previous post this is probably best for another thread.

Oopsie! You're absolutely right, of course :blink:

I'm getting my Chaos Theory and my Complex Dynamics all muddled up. Rats.

Nonetheless, despite my cock-up (!), the basic principal of what I said is sound - that random, chaotic perturbations not only don't negate order but they demonstrably lead to order, given enough perturbations.

CB

(PS - I love the Mandelbrot Set...!)

EDIT - A couple of other things I'd like to quickly say... Firstly, the one thing I do agree with PP on is the opinion that Richard Dawkins is a total <insert rude name here> who has no right, no expertise in the field and no apparent ability to attempt to disprove the existence of God. The existence (or non-existence) of God is within the realms of Philosophy, not science. If a scientist is a non-believer then fair play to him (or her), but their job is to explore the scientific realm, not the spiritual one. (I also find Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and "Meme" concepts ridiculous, at least insofar as I have read his explanations of them - but that's a debate for another thread.)

The point of this is to say that just because Dawkins may be a total <rude name as above> doesn't mean that evolution is somehow wrong. Evolution is one of the most enduring unproven theories ever devised by man...

My second point is that I have never read a scientific paper or heard of a single scientific theory that has ever negated the existence of God. Although most theories are nicely self-consistent and don't actively require a God, per se, I have never seen one which actively precludes the existence of God. And that's the funny thing about God - because He exists outside the realm of science, science is unable to say anything about Him, either for or against.

So anyone who thinks that Evolution (or science as a whole) is anti-religious hasn't really thought it through properly...

Edited July 6, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[PersianPaladin]

This demonstrates the mechanics of evolution in the natural world, quite nicely.

The fitness landscape is one where the sheep can metabolise seaweed, and not grass. One (or more) of those sheep primarily through crossover had changes to its genome that probably allowed the production of a protein that breaks the seaweed down into useful stuff (glucose) Those who did not have this protein, say, available could not survive to reproduce and that part of the flocks genome died out leaving those who are fitter for the environment as the survivors.

I'm sure that PP would claim that this is adaptation and not evolution as evolution describes speciation, not adaptation. A more isolated view would be that God directed certain sheep to sleep with other certain sheep in order to make the successful genome occur. I, of course, argue that it is the same mechanics at play, and given time, speciation occurs as an extension of adaptation. An even stronger view, I guess, would be that God does not play dice, but he plays with cytosine, thymine, guamine and adennine (Incidentally, PP, a good argument against evolution is the existence of adenosine triphosphate and its role in the myocin ratchet - I find it peculiar that you haven't raised that one)

I am of the view that if that part of the genome did not already exist (through change that was hitherto not useful, but not dangerous to existence) then the flock would have died out unless an extremely fortuitous mutation occured which is, as I've said before, highly unlikely (remember the probability? 0.001 in a probability space of 0..1)

One must remember that evolution is not as successful as one might at first think. Remember that >99% of the world's species have already died out which means they were unable to adapt, evolve, or speciate.

Its not evolution...simply that of an adaption to the environment based on gene-sets that already exist within the respective gametes of the species. Under logical circumstances, such large sodium intake for the majority of upland sheep would result in poisoning and considerable organ damage as a result of accumulation. This particular breed of sheep, however, appears to be unique to that of other types and hence possesses a higher potential tolerance to certain chemical compounds in the ecosystem biota. Again...I see no 'chance' or evidence of mutation here...simply the evidence of adaptation in which the sheep have no role or say in the matter. Neither do individual gametes or genes develop it through chance 'crossover'....logic dictates that in order to prevent the species dying out; something guides and organises the existing dna-sets into an order which increases sodium tolerance through increased hormonal production interacting with the gastro-intestinal system. Nothing genetically new, is hence, created in a sense. The whole point I am saying is....there is nothing chaotic or random here. If there is potential within a species to adapt to certain environmental pressures....then intelligent-design will make use of the gene-sets available to adapt.

Oopsie! You're absolutely right, of course :blink:

I'm getting my Chaos Theory and my Complex Dynamics all muddled up. Rats.

Nonetheless, despite my cock-up (!), the basic principal of what I said is sound - that random, chaotic perturbations not only don't negate order but they demonstrably lead to order, given enough perturbations.

CB

(PS - I love the Mandelbrot Set...!)

EDIT - A couple of other things I'd like to quickly say... Firstly, the one thing I do agree with PP on is the opinion that Richard Dawkins is a total <insert rude name here> who has no right, no expertise in the field and no apparent ability to attempt to disprove the existence of God. The existence (or non-existence) of God is within the realms of Philosophy, not science. If a scientist is a non-believer then fair play to him (or her), but their job is to explore the scientific realm, not the spiritual one. (I also find Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and "Meme" concepts ridiculous, at least insofar as I have read his explanations of them - but that's a debate for another thread.)

The point of this is to say that just because Dawkins may be a total <rude name as above> doesn't mean that evolution is somehow wrong. Evolution is one of the most enduring unproven theories ever devised by man...

My second point is that I have never read a scientific paper or heard of a single scientific theory that has ever negated the existence of God. Although most theories are nicely self-consistent and don't actively require a God, per se, I have never seen one which actively precludes the existence of God. And that's the funny thing about God - because He exists outside the realm of science, science is unable to say anything about Him, either for or against.

So anyone who thinks that Evolution (or science as a whole) is anti-religious hasn't really thought it through properly...

Just want to add some fuel to the anti-evolution debate: -

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/citmag92.htm

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/citmag92.htm

I can't agree with Mr Johnson despite his specialty of "analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments", largely because of his own assumptions. Let's look at this step by step...

"I would read Stephen Jay Gould telling the scientific world that Darwinism was effectively dead as a theory. And then in the popular literature, I would read Gould and other scientific writers saying that Darwinism was fundamentally healthy, and that scientists had the remaining problems well under control."

I've read Wonderful Life and The Panda's Thumb and in both of these works Gould specifically underlines the fact that Darwinism (that is, evolution strictly as described by Darwin himself in Origin of Species) is not an accurate working theory. Gould was a proponent of the belief (yes, belief) that evolution trundles along slowly at the level observed today (adaptation), and that speciation was a process which occurred in occasional spurts. Which leads on to this objection:

"The most important is the fossil problem, because this is a direct record of the history of life on earth. If Darwinism were true, you would expect the fossil evidence to contain many examples of Darwinian evolution", and "You wouldn't expect to find them in every case, of course. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a great deal of the fossil evidence has been lost. But you would continually be finding examples of things that fit well with the theory."

Mr Johnson has failed to appreciate the paucity of excavated fossils by comparison to the number of animals that have ever lived over a simply mind-boggling timescale. I suppose a rough equivalent would be scouring the whole of the UK for a specific few dozen hidden pins, only one of which represents a "missing link". It's not as if the fossil record covers every year, or every decade, or every century, or even every millennium since Precambrian times, so there's plenty of time for Missing Links to have been "lost" in.

It's like watching a controlled explosion, having no idea when the explosion is going to start, and hoping to be able to catch the moment of detonation on a point-and-shoot camera, with the added difficulty of having no control over when the picture is actually going to be taken.

"...how do you know it's true if it isn't recorded in the fossils? Where is the proof?"

This is why it's called a Theory and not a Law. Yes, people may go around espousing Evolution as fact when it is actually only a theory, but it does work well enough to use as a working hypothesis. ID doesn't.

"The project of Darwinism is to explain the world and all its life forms in a way that excludes any role for a creator."

To be fair, this is the role of Science in general, not just "Darwinism" - and in fact that's not even an accurate statement: it should be "to explain the world...in a way that doesn't rely on a Creator." As has been mentioned before on this thread, there's no reason to suppose that God can't exist if Evolution is correct. Why can't God have created the concept of Evolution, for example? It is the job of science to explain everything as best as possible in human terms, essentially.

The word "Science" comes from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge". Since God is "unknowable" then He exists outside of the confines of science. Science has no remit in discussing God, by its very definition.

"So this is fundamentally a religious position-a fundamentalist position, if you like--and it's being taught in the schools as a fact when it isn't even a good theory. "

Firstly, it's a far better theory than Mr Johnson gives it credit for being. Secondly, it's the best (or only) viable explanation we currently have. No doubt it will be scoffed at in years to come if it is proven to be false, but the role of education is to teach the best knowledge available at the time, and nothing more.

I'd be happy to elaborate on any points you wish to discuss further.

:blink:

CB

[Roger J Smith]

Let me set you all straight on these matters.

God created the world in 1927. All human "history" (nudge nudge wink wink) before that was entirely made up, and designed to make it seem like Europeans were the bad guys.

God also planted various fossils and rocks in convenient places knowing that we would find them and accept the made up theories of the 19th century (which never happened) and immediately doubt His existence.

This would leave him free to continue his main work, running a B & B in Cleethorpes, an occupation so time-consuming that only an ubermensch could handle it, and that's without umlauts.

A world without umlauts did not please a certain A. Hitler who had been created exceptionally cranky, and so world war II came and went.

Later on, there was global cooling, global warming, and the stupendous successes of the GFS 7 to 16 day panels, which made everyone in Fantasy Island sit up and take notice.

I know other details but feel that they would be beyond your ability to process, or perhaps outside your interest zone.

By the way, there will be a redesign fairly shortly, and you might want to keep that in mind if you say bad things about any of the following: West is Best, Persian Paladin, Grab my Graupels, Paul Sherman, Blast from the Past, Eye in the Sky, Summer Blizzard, the young lady who does the weather on a certain TV station and clearly should perhaps be doing something else, and myself, in that order of importance, squared, reduced to the third root and then squared a few more times, times pi.

Please memorize all these facts and report for final examination to achieve your Certificate of Upgraded Evolutionary Theory, which will allow you to take up residence in any midwestern state.

Thank you for listening and ignore the safety lecture on airplanes, if the damned plane goes down, it goes down and your chance of swimming to shore from the middle of the Atlantic in a lifejacket that clearly nobody could put on without arms or legs, is minimal, and perhaps more to the point, useless.

[VillagePlank]

So, Roger, you've discovered the joys of warm brown stuff from micro-breweries, then?

Look out for the creation of th zebra - coming soon ...

[androcles]

see this

http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html

Andy

Edited July 8, 2007 by androcles

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Evolution is science... it's a theory that despite repeated attempts has not been disproved, and is supported by those scientific "facts" that we know so far. Intelligent design however is not science... Just like the existance of god, it can niether be proved or disproved beyond a certainty of 50% either way, and cannot be either directly supported or detracted from by any current scientific knowledge.

The former is a matter of science, while the latter is a matter of faith and philosophy.

You need to watch the video.

It's traditional science. The claims made stand on physical observation such as the "irreducible complexity" of the flagellum.

ID then is most obvious at the microscopic level, in real time.

when you get small enough the theory of evolution doesn't work because there are too few parts involved.

organisms are supposed to evolve from simple to complex but at the microscopic level simple is complex.

you can't remove one part without the whole cell not functioning. how then did the cell evolve?

has not been explained or replicated, despite the few parts involved.

Darwinian theory relies on observations at everyday level which blur over the holes in the theory. natural selection does seem to make logical sense of biological change as seen over historical time better than any other theory.

Similar to -

Dawkins deals with this through memetics. Memes are a key twin-aspect of the genetic theory, but seldom understood.

Problem with memes are their existence.

Memetics cannot advance as a real science, which Dawkins has admitted, until they have been located and observed in the brain. Robert Aunger has the most advanced ideas on the subject.

Once again we find a problem with evolutionary theory here, this time cultural evolution, and again it's at the microscopic level.

It seems entirely logical that memes should exist, that they evolve in and between brains, but one suspects they'll never quite be pinned down.

Edited July 9, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Admiral_Bobski]

A quick question for anyone who knows the answer...

Is it true, as I have read in a variety of places, that the "non-coding" portion of human DNA includes sections which are "coding" portions of DNA in other species? So, for example, even though human beings don't actually have wings, our DNA does include the blueprint for wings, but this blueprint is dormant (non-coding) within us.

CB

[PersianPaladin]

A quick question for anyone who knows the answer...

Is it true, as I have read in a variety of places, that the "non-coding" portion of human DNA includes sections which are "coding" portions of DNA in other species? So, for example, even though human beings don't actually have wings, our DNA does include the blueprint for wings, but this blueprint is dormant (non-coding) within us.

CB

That's like saying that an Intel 4 processor has the potential emulation architecture to simulate a ZX Spectrum. The ALU\registry potentiality is there....but its an Intel processor, not a ZX Spectrum.

Apparently we share over 80% of our DNA with a cauliflower....but we are human beings, far more complicated and advanced.

[VillagePlank]

That's like saying that an Intel 4 processor has the potential emulation architecture to simulate a ZX Spectrum.

The architecture is identical and virtually unchanged since collossus was built; the only real differences are related to speed (such as pipelining) and more transistors meaning more instructions per clock cycle (as well as less friction due to better lithographics meaning more clock cycles!)

The ALU\registry potentiality is there....but its an Intel processor, not a ZX Spectrum.

The registers [sic] inside the processor are restricted by physical characteristics, not by logical ones. If you refrabricated the z80 using modern techniques then there's no reason why you couldn't ramp up it's clock speed. All processors have a ALU, and registers, btw, they are essential for their function.

Apparently we share over 80% of our DNA with a cauliflower....but we are human beings, far more complicated and advanced.

Some are, anyway