|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2011 : 13:04:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by filthy
It's actually pro-hoc, ad hoc rather than non-sequiter, but who cares?
Jerry, you are committing the same fallacy as they do at UD. Sieze upon a topic such as genetics, which the average "man on the street" knows little or nothing about, and beat it to death with scientific sounding pronouncements.
And I must remind; the co-founder of the Discovery Institute was/is a double-dipped creationist who is considered to be the "father" of ID.
Now then, somewhere 'way, back yonder, you stated that the fossil record supports ID. Would you please demonstrate how this is so? Thanks in advance.....
|
I will demonstrate it as the thread progresses and we begin to discuss evidence that supports ID.
And please remember that I have studied Genetics at a State university. So I MAY not be your average man on the street. I don't profess to be a geneticist, I'm far from one. But I'm not entirely ignorant in the subject, either.
|
Ah jeez, here we go again. What are we doing, Jerry; playing the flip side of a broken record?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 14:03:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Well, I HOPE my knowledge of entropy begins and ends with SLOT since that is what entropy is: SLOT, with any spontaneous reaction matter will tend to disorder. Entropy is simply a measure of that disorder. I would behoove you to learn that entropy is the measurement of SLOT. It's no more complicated than that and this is ALL that entropy is.
You'll never get thermodynamics until you understand this simple truism. |
I said that your knowledge of thermodynamics begins and ends with SLOT.| And I cannot grasp how that after all the discussions we have had on this subject that you still think I believe the designer to be a god rather than the quantum mechanics I've discussed with you. |
You're the one who said you call that QM thingy "god."| In fact, I KNOW you are aware of this. This tells me you are just being disingenuous. |
I am very much aware that you call it "god," so there's no disingenuousness at all. I asked you why anyone would call it "god," and got no answer.What is the difference between evolution and Darwinism? Evolution is a body of thought that merges several sciences inclusive of, but not limited to, microbiology, virology and genetics to study mutating genes in organisms. It is an excellent science and one that has brought us huge steps in the field of say, medicine and others.
Darwinism is just a silly fairytale for grown-ups wherein they take the science of evolution and begin to add their own notions of poofs. Man poofed from an ape-like critter, The ape-like critter poofed from something else all the way back to an amoeba-like organism which no one can say how arrived on planet Earth in the first place. |
This doesn't answer my question.| Science recognizes certain limits. Darwinism claims there is no such thing. |
Citation?ITEM: Man has been getting taller since at least the 1800s. I wonder how tall he will be in 10 million years?
Darwinist: I can extrapolate this. He will be 86.5 feet tall!
Evolutionist: Organisms have certain limitations programmed in their genes. I may not can tell you when this will level off, but level off it will. |
Wow, both your "Darwinist" and your "evolutionist" are wrong. Scientists have clearly shown that height increase to be due to better nutrition and health, and not an evolutionary change.ITEM: My wife has been working out in the gym and lost 10 pounds in a month. I wonder what she will weigh if she does this the rest of her life?
Darwinist: She will weigh exactly zero!
Evolutionist: This will level off when her metabolism catches up to the amount of calories she is working off. |
So you've just created a cartoon Darwinist, then, and are mocking it.I can't find my favorite Darwin quote and I forget what organism he began with because it's been years ago that I read it, but say it was a squirrel, and paraphrasing him: I can easily imagine a squirrel going through successive changes that it could turn into something so monstrous as a whale.
To that I say BAHAHahahahahah.......You call this science? |
So you being with your conclusion, and mock everything else. I see.| And this is why I am an evolutionist but not a Darwinist. |
But you're not an evolutionist.| We will get into some evidence for ID as the discussion progresses. |
Why be coy?
Also:| There is no such thing as "ID research" |
Thank you for agreeing that research based on ID doesn't exist.| ...We study the sciences as does everyone else. |
Very few people study the sciences, and those who do are typically either sociologists or philosophers.| I have introduced hard experimentation and mathematics that show there IS intelligence in QM. |
No, you've asserted intelligence based upon nothing more than the word "observer." It's a silly semantic game with no scientific or mathematical content.| Reject that evidence at the peril of failing to glean an understanding of your universe around you. |
Asserting that there must be an intelligence to do the observing isn't evidence, it's a hypothesis at best.| And please remember that I have studied Genetics at a State university. So I MAY not be your average man on the street. I don't profess to be a geneticist, I'm far from one. But I'm not entirely ignorant in the subject, either. |
If you do as well at genetics as you did at algebra, then you should sue to get your tuition back.
Unanswered questions so far:- What, exactly, is a "science concept?"
- Where is there evidence that there is purpose in the universe?
- Has ID, as "a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts," ever done so?
- What are the "tenets" of design?
- How have paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics used the "tenets" of design?
- Where is the evidence for a QM intelligence?
- What model does ID provide for "initial design?"
- How can ID provide a model for anything when there is no "theory of ID?"
- How does ID fit into a study of the study of the natural world?
- What do you think the "tenets of science" are, exactly?
- What do you think the differences between Darwinism and evolution are, exactly?
- How can ID provide a non-religious alternative for Darwinism when Mike Gene declared that all of science is based on faith?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 14:21:17 [Permalink]
|
I wanna know, specfically, how the fossil record supports ID. No long, drawn-out hyperbole about quantum genetics or any such tripe; just the fossil record.
Having given it a little thought, I can see where a non-religious person can buy into ID. But religious or not, he's still a creationist because he believes an outside entity, slowly or quickly, whatever, created it all. Nevertheless, that entity must be identified otherwise there's nothing. It can neither be falsified nor supported.
I'll give the YECs this much credit: they are not at all bashful in naming their verson of that entity.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 16:15:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Does it surprise you that Creationists have jumped all over ID to further their cause?
|
No, it doesn't. It's proof that there's something fundamentally (pun intended) wrong with ID.
| Astronomer Fred Hoyle, avid IDist was an atheist. |
Fred Hoyle? LMFAO!
You're talking about Fred "tornado-in-a-junkyard-assembling-a-747" Hoyle?
While some of his work in astronomy has been important, he also made some hilarious statements outside his field of expertese. Like the rejection of the Big Bang theory, questioning the authenticity of the Archaeopteryx fossil, and that junkyard thing. There's more.
He was an astronomer, not a molecular biologist, nor a paleontologist.
| So while it is quite true that Creationism has infiltrated ID in these modern times, one cannot say that ID has a basis in Creationism as it was espoused hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. |
Interesing. How come you're connecting creationists to Jesus Christ? It's not like Christianity is the oldest religion with a creation myth... Those can be traced farther back in time than Plato or Socrates.
| One cannot use logic as you guys are doing in this thread, either: I know some Creationists who espouse ID, Jerry espouses ID, therefore Jerry is a Creationist. That is simply a non-sequiter in any logic class. |
You wouldn't know logic if it grew fangs and bit you in the ass.
The logic is: Jerry espouses ID with the same debunked arguments as Creationists espouses ID, and links to creationists for arguments, therefore its highly likely that Jerry is a Creationist.
Hell, it's simpler than that.
Premise 1: To be a Creationist, you have to say God created Man.
Premise 2: Jerry says God created Man.
Conclusion: Jerry is a creationist.
Note than you don't necessary have to say "Yahweh" or "Allah" to be a creationist. "God is Quantum Mechanics" is good enough.
You're a hoot, Jerry.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 16:34:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
JerryB.
Science recognizes certain limits. Darwinism claims there is no such thing.
ITEM: Man has been getting taller since at least the 1800s. I wonder how tall he will be in 10 million years?
Darwinist: I can extrapolate this. He will be 86.5 feet tall!
Evolutionist: Organisms have certain limitations programmed in their genes. I may not can tell you when this will level off, but level off it will.
ITEM: My wife has been working out in the gym and lost 10 pounds in a month. I wonder what she will weigh if she does this the rest of her life?
Darwinist: She will weigh exactly zero!
Evolutionist: This will level off when her metabolism catches up to the amount of calories she is working off.
|
I don't call this science, Jerry. I call this the most blatantly outrageous strawman argument against evolution and natural selection that has ever graced the the pages of this forum. |
Jerry, you should know it's not your common brand of christian fundy evangelicals you've outdone. There have been some pretty crazy people here.
But at least we know now without a doubt that you're not here for any intelligent discussion, no exchange of ideas. You have no honesty, no intellectual integrity.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 21:21:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
And please remember that I have studied Genetics at a State university. So I MAY not be your average man on the street. I don't profess to be a geneticist, I'm far from one. But I'm not entirely ignorant in the subject, either.
|
Surely, you're not trying to say that you know more about genetics than you do about thermodynamics? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 11:12:48 [Permalink]
|
I promised that I would get into some evidence for intelligent design and since filthy (and others) have been pestering me to back up my assertion that the fossil record shows evidence that suggests ID rather than Darwinism as the root of origins, I might as well begin there.
I WOULD ask a favor. Every time I go here on a forum, people seem to want to reply to my argument by sending me to LOOOoooog articles to read. I just don't have time for that and have read them all at one time or another. So PLEASE: put your arguments into your own words, use the reference as references and I will do the same for you.
Let me start my reiterating some of the arguments I have already made regarding this on other areas of the forum:
Darwin was a gradualist. "Gradualism is the belief in or the policy of advancing toward a goal by gradual, often slow stages."
"Charles Darwin was influenced by Lyell's Principles of Geology, which explained both uniformitarian methodology and theory. Using methodological uniformitarianism, which states that one cannot make an appeal to any force or phenomenon which cannot presently be observed (see catastrophism), Darwin theorized that the evolutionary process must occur gradually, not in saltations, since saltations are not presently observed, and extreme deviations from the usual phenotypic variation would be more likely to be selected against."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism
Yet, we don't see any gradualism in the fossil record and your own (the Darwinist's) professionals (the honest ones) openly admit this.
Mayr (1982: 508) observes--following the publication of Origin: paleontologists objected to Darwin's claim that evolution is a gradual process and "insisted on the sudden origin of new types in the fossil record and on the total absence of intermediate types.
(Elsewhere Mayr (1982: 617) comments that all the great leaders of paleontology during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries — Cope, Marsh, Dollo, Abel, Osborn, and Matthew — all explained the origins of new forms in terms of saltation.{1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Harvard University Press.})
So not even is Darwinian Gradualism controversial today, it was as much or more so in Darwin's time and by many of his own peers.
What then do we see in the fossil record if not gradualism? As I have stated on here before, we see the relatively sudden appearance of fully formed (fully formed, meaning as we see them today) organisms ready to go in their environment.
"The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance, over a period of many million years, of most major Phyla around 530 million years ago, as found in the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s......"
".....Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution. He had even devoted a substantial chapter of The Origin of Species to solving this problem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
So Darwin's detractors were correct in his day and we still are today; because in 150 years no further evidence has been discovered that would show macroevolution via small incremental changes over time. Instead we see relatively sudden appearances on planet earth: saltation.
Another area in the record is the fact that 98% of the species we see in it are now extinct.
http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Saving-Reptiles-and-Amphibians/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Extinction
Some simply died out, others disappeared in mass extinctions (such as the dinosaurs).
Well, that's rather odd. Shouldn't at least some of these organisms have evolved into a more complex "something else?" Surely so if Darwinism were at play here.
ID explains this, Darwinism suffers.
As a population becomes interbred over a long period of time, genomes tend to degrade via deleterious mutations.
"Muller's ratchet says that in an asexual population, over time deleterious mutations build up as there is no chance of the trait not being passed on, so there in no way to go back to the original genome. This is the origin of the name as like a ratchet, there is no going back. This means that over time the population as a whole will degrade to non existent within approximately 10^4-10^5 generations."
http://www.petfish.net/amazon_molly.htm
This is called mutational meltdown and this is exactly what ID would predict to happen as I have shown mathematically in a previous thread. Darwinism predicts the opposite to happen: complex macroevolution into higher ordered creatures. After all, is this not the only way that man could have evolved from an amoeba?
So, I'm afraid the fossil record shows saltation and devolution from that point further. This is direct evidence to support intelligent design and a nail in the coffin to Darwinism
The question the reader needs to ask introspectively is: Who/what salted planet Earth with life?
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 12:11:24 [Permalink]
|
JerryB said:
I WOULD ask a favor. Every time I go here on a forum, people seem to want to reply to my argument by sending me to LOOOoooog articles to read. I just don't have time for that and have read them all at one time or another. So PLEASE: put your arguments into your own words, use the reference as references and I will do the same for you.
|
At least you are honest enough to admit you lack the intilectual capacity to engage in real arguments. Now you just need to make the connection, in your head, that links your lack of capcity with the sense to not actually engage in arguments where you have zero understanding of the concepts involved.
You can do it Jerry! That, or you can continue to paint the walls with your own poop.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 12:58:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
JerryB said:
I WOULD ask a favor. Every time I go here on a forum, people seem to want to reply to my argument by sending me to LOOOoooog articles to read. I just don't have time for that and have read them all at one time or another. So PLEASE: put your arguments into your own words, use the reference as references and I will do the same for you.
|
At least you are honest enough to admit you lack the intilectual capacity to engage in real arguments. Now you just need to make the connection, in your head, that links your lack of capcity with the sense to not actually engage in arguments where you have zero understanding of the concepts involved.
You can do it Jerry! That, or you can continue to paint the walls with your own poop.
|
So that is your entire intellectual response to that long post? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 13:54:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I WOULD ask a favor. Every time I go here on a forum, people seem to want to reply to my argument by sending me to LOOOoooog articles to read. I just don't have time for that and have read them all at one time or another. So PLEASE: put your arguments into your own words, use the reference as references and I will do the same for you. |
Your blatant lack of knowledge in so many areas makes it necessary for us to educate you, in order to bring you up to speed on current science. Or even yesterday's science.
The quickest way to effectively do this would be to send you back to a high-school with science teachers who understand what they are teaching you. Evangelical PE-teachers aren't qualified to explain evolutionary theories.
A lot of the shit you've written on this forum is so hilarious it's not even funny anymore. In absence of qualified teachers, you get links that thoroughly explains the concepts you need to learn before you will be able to muster proper criticisms against it. Invoking Isaac Newton for an explanation to the Big Bang is just another example, and I won't even mention the galaxy-clusters flying around in the universe...
| Let me start my reiterating some of the arguments I have already made regarding this on other areas of the forum: |
Why bother? You didn't get it right the first time. Repeating it won't make it more true.
| Mayr (1982: 508) observes--following the publication of Origin: |
There are many Mayr. Are you referring to Ernst W. Mayr? Your citation is incomplete.
Anyway, you're quoting one single biologist, what he said ~30 years ago? It never crossed your mind that science has progressed since then. Apart from that, let me remind you that we have already established that his ideas of the definition of species were flawed.
Besides, "species" is a human concept, a way for us to systematicize and order our knowledge of nature. Just because we have made a box and labelled it 'species' doesn't mean that whatever we put in that box will fit. Our language sets up limits to our ability to describe nature, making those descriptions inaccurate. Mayr's miss was that he never considered the possibility of Ring Species in his attempt to define a concept of species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
So Darwin's detractors were correct in his day and we still are today; because in 150 years no further evidence has been discovered that would show macroevolution via small incremental changes over time. Instead we see relatively sudden appearances on planet earth: saltation. |
Saltation generally implies a change from being one species in one generation, then suddenly change into a new species. Just what IDists need to do in order to explain the Cambrian explosion. Just the kind of Godly intervention that is required to design a new species.
There are more than one evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion, and neither require saltation. Citing Wikipedia for such a statement is just quotemining.
Some simply died out, others disappeared in mass extinctions (such as the dinosaurs).
Well, that's rather odd. Shouldn't at least some of these organisms have evolved into a more complex "something else?" Surely so if Darwinism were at play here. |
Yes, and that is what we see. We have an entire class of organisms that are descendants of dinosaurs, more specifically: theropods. Today we call them birds. There is also another lineage that survived from 100+ million years of Era of the Dinosaurs, though not actual descendants of dinos: Crocks.
As a population becomes interbred over a long period of time, genomes tend to degrade via deleterious mutations. |
That's what you keep saying, but haven't been able to support with actual science.
| "Muller's ratchet says that in an asexual population, over time deleterious mutations build up as there is no chance of the trait not being passed on, so there in no way to go back to the original genome. |
You're quoting a 40+ years old paper on the importance of the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction!?!?
Ok, I'll bite. Why haven't all bacteria on the entire planet earth gone extinct? Surely it must happen in an instant, in a geological time scale...
But the answer already exist in evolutionary theory: environmental pressure and natural selection. One mutation does not happen to an entire population in one generation. As long as there are environmental pressures, a "clan" of bacteria within the greater population, with a slightly deletrious mutation, won't stand a chance in competition against its peers. They will loose the battle for world domination and become extinct.
This is the origin of the name as like a ratchet, there is no going back. This means that over time the population as a whole will degrade to non existent within approximately 10^4-10^5 generations."
http://www.petfish.net/amazon_molly.htm |
What an improper citation. The number of generations are not cited from any peer-reviewd material. Besides, they are discussing inbreeding of aquarium fish. Not asexually reproducing species.
| This is called mutational meltdown and this is exactly what ID would predict... |
...if you discount environmental pressure and natural selecion to weed out the bad mutations.
| ... to happen as I have shown mathematically in a previous thread. |
You mean what you failed to show mathematically. Quit denying reality, it doesn't become you, and it prevents you from educating yourself and improving your arguments.
| Darwinism predicts the opposite to happen: complex macroevolution into higher ordered creatures. After all, is this not the only way that man could have evolved from an amoeba? |
Perhaps not the only way, but it's the best explanation we have that fits the evidence.
| So, I'm afraid the fossil record shows saltation and devolution from that point further. |
No it does not, because saltation implies a major change in phenotype from one generation to another. The fossil record by its very nature cannot show the progression of evolution from one generation to another, unless you can find a fossil which carries the fossil of its descendant yet born. Or some other situation where there's no question that the fossils are of consecutive generations. Until now, I haven't heard about any, but such a find would absolutely put gradualism to rest.
This is direct evidence to support intelligent design and a nail in the coffin to Darwinism
The question the reader needs to ask introspectively is: Who/what salted planet Earth with life? |
Your answer is God, obviously. You've said it yourself. Our answer would also be God, if we started out with the same flawed premises as you do. But we don't assume intelligence as responsible for lite of earth, and we don't appeal to ignorance or incredulity when we find a conundrum.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 14:25:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
What then do we see in the fossil record if not gradualism? As I have stated on here before, we see the relatively sudden appearance of fully formed (fully formed, meaning as we see them today) |
Please provide citations that the fossils of the Cambrian are "as we see [animals] today."| ...organisms ready to go in their environment. |
Of course they were "ready to go in their environment." If they weren't, they would have been dead before they were born.| So Darwin's detractors were correct in his day and we still are today; because in 150 years no further evidence has been discovered that would show macroevolution via small incremental changes over time. Instead we see relatively sudden appearances on planet earth: saltation. |
Your sample size is 1 so far. Not encouraging. And since you've already approvingly cited puctuated equilibrium, why would you even bring this up again?| Another area in the record is the fact that 98% of the species we see in it are now extinct. |
According to Gould, the average "lifespan" of a species is about ten million years. Since common descent ensures that life's history is more bush-like than vine-like, we would expect most species to have died out. If each species were to give rise to only two others, on a clockwork 10-million year timeframe since the oldest known fossil, then there should have been over 10100 different species in the 3.5 billion-year history of life, making the estimated 1.3 million species alive today about 10-92% of the total. And that's using a cartoon version of Darwinism like you do.| Well, that's rather odd. Shouldn't at least some of these organisms have evolved into a more complex "something else?" |
Some did. Why do you think none did?| Surely so if Darwinism were at play here. |
Some did. Homo erectus is an ancestor of Homo sapiens, for a simple example.| ID explains this, Darwinism suffers. |
How can ID explain it when there's no "theory of ID?"| As a population becomes interbred over a long period of time, genomes tend to degrade via deleterious mutations. |
How is that an explanation based on the idea that an intelligence created life?| "Muller's ratchet says that in an asexual population, over time deleterious mutations build up as there is no chance of the trait not being passed on, so there in no way to go back to the original genome. This is the origin of the name as like a ratchet, there is no going back. This means that over time the population as a whole will degrade to non existent within approximately 10^4-10^5 generations." |
How does this apply to sexual species?| This is called mutational meltdown and this is exactly what ID would predict to happen... |
How does one get from "life is intelligently designed" to "mutational meltdown occurs" in logical steps?| ...as I have shown mathematically in a previous thread. |
No, you showed mathematical wishful thinking because you were unable to justify your choice of formulae and unable to comprehend what your results meant.| Darwinism predicts the opposite to happen: complex macroevolution into higher ordered creatures. |
No, actually, it doesn't.| After all, is this not the only way that man could have evolved from an amoeba? |
That's the highest-level abstraction of what is seen in the fossil record. Unfortunately, "complexity" doesn't track with any other metric we can glean from biology. Or do you think it does? If so, which metric would you use to measure "complexity?"
Also: how does ID explain the fact that there isn't there anything much more complex than amoeba prior to the Cambrian Explosion, according to your own source? How does ID predict the observed increase in "complexity" over time?| So, I'm afraid the fossil record shows saltation and devolution from that point further. |
Since you approvingly quoted Gould in the other thread, you're mistaken about saltation. And since you haven't shown that humans have existed for 580 million years, you're mistaken about "devolution."| This is direct evidence to support intelligent design... |
Except that since there is no "ID theory," ID cannot make predictions and so cannot have any evidence to support it.| ...and a nail in the coffin to Darwinism |
It's actually what would be expected from Darwinian processes.| The question the reader needs to ask introspectively is: Who/what salted planet Earth with life? |
Only if life was "salted," and you haven't made your case yet. There are unanswered questions above, along with these others:- What, exactly, is a "science concept?"
- Where is there evidence that there is purpose in the universe?
- Has ID, as "a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts," ever done so?
- What are the "tenets" of design?
- How have paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics used the "tenets" of design?
- Where is the evidence for a QM intelligence?
- What model does ID provide for "initial design?"
- How can ID provide a model for anything when there is no "theory of ID?"
- How does ID fit into a study of the study of the natural world?
- What do you think the "tenets of science" are, exactly?
- What do you think the differences between Darwinism and evolution are, exactly?
- How can ID provide a non-religious alternative for Darwinism when Mike Gene declared that all of science is based on faith?
- Can you provide a citation for your claim that "Darwinism claims there is no such thing ['limits']?"
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 16:30:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Dude
JerryB said:
I WOULD ask a favor. Every time I go here on a forum, people seem to want to reply to my argument by sending me to LOOOoooog articles to read. I just don't have time for that and have read them all at one time or another. So PLEASE: put your arguments into your own words, use the reference as references and I will do the same for you.
|
At least you are honest enough to admit you lack the intilectual capacity to engage in real arguments. Now you just need to make the connection, in your head, that links your lack of capcity with the sense to not actually engage in arguments where you have zero understanding of the concepts involved.
You can do it Jerry! That, or you can continue to paint the walls with your own poop.
|
So that is your entire intellectual response to that long post?
|
You posted nothing of substance, therefore there is nothing worth responding to other than your stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 17:15:03 [Permalink]
|
JerryB wrote:
| This is called mutational meltdown and this is exactly what ID would predict to happen as I have shown mathematically in a previous thread. |
Even if your thermodynamic nonsense in the other thread had been even remotely on the spot, ID does not predict "mutational meltdown". ID doesn't predict anything. Even Dembski admits to this:
| But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience. This is to commit a category mistake. To be sure, designers, like natural laws, can behave predictably (designers often institute policies that end up being rigidly obeyed). Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. |
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2011 : 22:23:17 [Permalink]
|
Let me add two more unanswered questions from the previous thread for the list for Jerry:- What, exactly, is a "science concept?"
- Where is there evidence that there is purpose in the universe?
- Has ID, as "a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts," ever done so?
- What are the "tenets" of design?
- How have paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics used the "tenets" of design?
- Where is the evidence for a QM intelligence?
- What model does ID provide for "initial design?"
- How can ID provide a model for anything when there is no "theory of ID?"
- How does ID fit into a study of the study of the natural world?
- What do you think the "tenets of science" are, exactly?
- What do you think the differences between Darwinism and evolution are, exactly?
- How can ID provide a non-religious alternative for Darwinism when Mike Gene declared that all of science is based on faith?
- Can you provide a citation for your claim that "Darwinism claims there is no such thing ['limits']?"
- Why would anyone call a quantum-mechanical intelligence "God?"
- Why would you use Boltzmann's equation on a system that you know isn't in equilibrium?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 04:00:44 [Permalink]
|
| Not one rebuttal to Darwinian Gradualism with references? HINT: Jerry, you are ignorant is not a rebuttal in debate. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
