The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well, a mammal has mammorial glands like the human female. Doesn't mean that they evolved from each other.

Principles are distributed in nature, but not randomly, by chance or by species evolving magically into each other.

So basically what you're saying is the fact that various organs operate in exactly the same way in a variety of different species is essentially a miracle?

So we've replaced "magical mutations" with "miraculous divinity"?

I suspect this debate is going to go nowhere.

CB

Edited July 10, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[SP1986]

So basically what you're saying is the fact that vaious organs operate in exactly the same way in a variety of different species is essentially a miracle?

So we've replaced "magical mutations" with "miraculous divinity"?

I suspect this debate is going to go nowhere.

CB

Well we must keep our humour up. I suspect we are destined not to know are origins!

[PersianPaladin]

So basically what you're saying is the fact that vaious organs operate in exactly the same way in a variety of different species is essentially a miracle?

So we've replaced "magical mutations" with "miraculous divinity"?

I suspect this debate is going to go nowhere.

CB

I think every square inch is a miracle....all these atoms whirling in unison...

Its not a religious question, but a question of reason. Did JK Rowling, Shakespeare, Mozart, etc produce their great works with blindfolds? No. Of course not. A dna strand could not write itself, maintain itself through reproduction, crossover for eons of generations through proccesses of mutation and chance that happen every now and again. I just can't logic it in my head...it defies reason, it does not compute.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think every square inch is a miracle....all these atoms whirling in unison...

Its not a religious question, but a question of reason. Did JK Rowling, Shakespeare, Mozart, etc produce their great works with blindfolds? No. Of course not. A dna strand could not write itself, maintain itself through reproduction, crossover for eons of generations through proccesses of mutation and chance that happen every now and again. I just can't logic it in my head...it defies reason, it does not compute.

Why could a DNA strand not write itself?

You continually compare Life with "The Great Works of <insert name here>", but it is an invalid comparison - for all their glory, the Great Works are not Alive.

I'm going to leave this debate now - you've repeatedly pressed your side of the argument, and you continue to cling to it despite the wealth of contradictory information that others have posted. You have resisted every single fact that others have presented - I don't think you've accepted a single thing. This being the case, continuing the debate is pointless.

CB

[SP1986]

I don't think people should necessarily see arguments as a bad thing, things will never get sorted out, not on net-weather, but I think everyone should see the value of their own opinion and each others. debates like this create interesting scenarios and are good for peoples health. Don't necessarily see your colleagues argument as invalid, see it as a fantastic quality of human ability.

Don't mock each other, embrace each others argument - think thats pretty important.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I don't think people should necessarily see arguments as a bad thing, things will never get sorted out, not on net-weather, but I think everyone should see the value of their own opinion and each others. debates like this create interesting scenarios and are good for peoples health. Don't necessarily see your colleagues argument as invalid, see it as a fantastic quality of human ability.

Don't mock each other, embrace each others argument - think thats pretty important.

I agree - debate is fantastic, but it can be frustrating. I don't necessarily want to Convert everyone to my way of thinking, but I like to see some open-mindedness.

Ho-hum! I'll head back to the Climate Change area now. (I'll lock myself in!)

:lol:

CB

[PersianPaladin]

Why could a DNA strand not write itself?

You continually compare Life with "The Great Works of <insert name here>", but it is an invalid comparison - for all their glory, the Great Works are not Alive.

I'm going to leave this debate now - you've repeatedly pressed your side of the argument, and you continue to cling to it despite the wealth of contradictory information that others have posted. You have resisted every single fact that others have presented - I don't think you've accepted a single thing. This being the case, continuing the debate is pointless.

CB

I have not denied natural selection...I have just said that it creates nothing new in and of itself, so is not something to be used within an evolution debate as somebody argued earlier.

I just have a problem with the concept of 'crossover' and mutation in producing new species. No case has been documented and why do we assume it to be chance?

[SP1986]

I have not denied natural selection...I have just said that it creates nothing new in and of itself, so is not something to be used within an evolution debate as somebody argued earlier.

I just have a problem with the concept of 'crossover' and mutation in producing new species. No case has been documented and why do we assume it to be chance?

I suppose in theory mutation could come from a DNA strand. Imagine life as a tree for example and

\/ \/ \/ <---- this represents

\/ \/

\/

||

that tree, I suppose along every brance there is a possibility of that mutation diverting it along another branch - if you get what I mean?

[PersianPaladin]

I suppose in theory mutation could come from a DNA strand. Imagine life as a tree for example and \/ \/ \/ <---- this reresents

\/ \/

\/

||

that tree, I suppose along every brance there is a possibility of that mutation diverting it along another branch - if you get what I mean?

Well, the helix structure of the dna is somewhat different and more complex than the example you place there. There are also lots of subsets involved that influence each other so for a 'branch' to develop would require no genetic mistakes along the way. Unlikely, if you conform to the stop-start randomness neo-darwinian evolution and the mish-mash of occasional 'positive' (and mostly damaging) mutations..

[SP1986]

Well, the helix structure of the dna is somewhat different and more complex than the example you place there. There are also lots of subsets involved that influence each other so for a 'branch' to develop would require no genetic mistakes along the way. Unlikely, if you conform to the stop-start randomness neo-darwinian evolution and the mish-mash of occasional 'positive' (and mostly damaging) mutations..

I honestly will put my hands down and say i don't know. I will never know unless someone has a breakthrough. An interesting debate would be mutation v's competition

[Bobby]

To say essentially all of biology, formulated by thousands of scientists over 150 years, is wrong requires some massive proof, and I see no such proof that evolution is wrong, or that intelligent design is correct.

Where is the evidence for intelligent design? Instead of saying evolution is wrong, let's all discuss the evidence that suggest intelligent design is right, if there is any. What evidence is there that a supreme being created life?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Well, a mammal has mammorial glands like the human female. Doesn't mean that they evolved from each other.

But it's a pretty damned big clue that we all have some common origin isn't it? And mammals have mammories like humans because...well...we're mammals too.

Am I missing something here?

[pottyprof]

Am I missing something here?

Probably PP's medication.......

[PersianPaladin]

But it's a pretty damned big clue that we all have some common origin isn't it? And mammals have mammories like humans because...well...we're mammals too.

Am I missing something here?

Thats besides the point, OON.

Our origin is apparently the primitive nothingness of the primordial ocean. To say that it all organised itself into individual distinct species with related components in a harmonious synergistic way by chance\mutation, etc - defies logic. And the fact that we share certain features with mammals does not mean we 'evolved' from them - the verterbrate record shows certain fish and mammals seemingly appearing at the same time. How?

There are common themes in the natural world; intelligent design states that human beings are the encapsulation of that. Take the example of the Platypus. All its relevant features work in complete harmony with its habitat and internally to serve its function...the reptilian and mammalian aspects work in harmony. These are design principles that have existed at pretty much similar periods as other design principles in differing species at the same time. By chance? I think not. By some mysterious innate intelligence embedded within the system....very much likely.

All tunes come from the same piano keys....but they cannot organise themselves by chance. It doesn't make sense.

Edited July 11, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[SP1986]

Probably PP's medication.......

Like I said, everyones entitled to their opinion, no matter how people may not agree with it..

[PersianPaladin]

To say essentially all of biology, formulated by thousands of scientists over 150 years, is wrong requires some massive proof, and I see no such proof that evolution is wrong, or that intelligent design is correct.

Where is the evidence for intelligent design? Instead of saying evolution is wrong, let's all discuss the evidence that suggest intelligent design is right, if there is any. What evidence is there that a supreme being created life?

Look around you. Stop relying on a theory that you claim to be 'fact' and do your own qualified investigations.

[pottyprof]

I'm sure that some time soon, the bible will start to be explained. My mates Ex Mother-in-law left me a leaflet on how to debunk Darwin's theory and in which verses to look for it..

Like I said, everyones entitled to their opinion, no matter how people may not agree with it..

I respect anybody's POV Ste.

[PersianPaladin]

I'm sure that some time soon, the bible will start to be explained. My mates Ex Mother-in-law left me a leaflet on how to debunk Darwin's theory and in which verses to look for it..

I respect anybody's POV Ste.

Forget the bible or religion.

[VillagePlank]

Well, the helix structure of the dna is somewhat different and more complex than the example you place there. There are also lots of subsets involved that influence each other so for a 'branch' to develop would require no genetic mistakes along the way. Unlikely, if you conform to the stop-start randomness neo-darwinian evolution and the mish-mash of occasional 'positive' (and mostly damaging) mutations..

You are at it again. Mutations do not drive evolutionary change. If you continue to say it over and over again it doesn't change the theory to something that you find more palatable to argue with.

Don't be afraid of sex, huh.

Our origin

If you want to talk origins that's another debate (as I've said before) I would be the first to put myhand up in class and agree that the creation of life is as much likely to be the work of a creator, as it is to be the work of chance.

This afternoon we will create a zebra. We will drive complexity by conformation to an environment, and nothing else.

[flagpole]

Where's the evidence for Intelligent Design?

There isn't any.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Our origin is apparently the primitive nothingness of the primordial ocean. To say that it all organised itself into individual distinct species with related components in a harmonious synergistic way by chance\mutation, etc - defies logic.

No it doesn't....not to me anyway, and certainly not when compared to things like the formation of stars, elements, galaxies, Dale Winton etc etc etc. There are far more strange things out there to my mind than the evolution of life which seems pretty logical to me.

[PersianPaladin]

Where's the evidence for Intelligent Design?

I have already stated it through logical reasoning. The origin of species is tied to the origin of life; you cannot separate them. I have also said look at the micro\macro-cosmic links between the biological cell and the universe. This doesn't seem to be a 'chance' thing.

And haploid crossover may create variation within the same species, but not new information so as to result into a different species.

http://www.wasdarwinright.net/adapt&mutate-f.htm

Edited July 11, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[flagpole]

And haploid crossover may create variation within the same species, but not new information so as to result into a different species.

So - say millions and millions of years ago we all started out as the same 'blob'. Haploid variation kicks in and we evolve into different 'blobs'. This continues over the millenia and the 'blobs', thru haploid crossover, vary to such a degree that they are now different species?

[PersianPaladin]

So - say millions and millions of years ago we all started out as the same 'blob'. Haploid variation kicks in and we evolve into different 'blobs'. This continues over the millenia and the 'blobs', thru haploid crossover, vary to such a degree that they are now different species?

It can't create new information....we would just end up being blobs of varying size and other limited variations within the constraints of the specific genome. Remember, differing species cannot mate.

You're either going to rely on random mutation or intelligent design.

Edited July 11, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Osbourne One-Nil]

It can't create new information....

Yes it can.

There, that told him.