If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

[Cancel3]

The most important fact of the debate is that the use of a totally unknown and unquantified force as the main point of the theory puts it outside the range of a scientific model.[/QUOTE]

Untrue.

Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

When they use design detection in seeking to explain cause of deaths or fires, they are starting with known factors. We know how fire burns given certain amounts of oxygen, fuel and time. And they look for patterns that would not follow that natural progression that we have researched and observed. This is completely different than the ID claims would be.

Also, the design detection used in SETI is simply a way to filter all random and abstract designs out. For example, straight lines are noted. They do not mean there is intelligent design. They are just far less common in a random or natural setting.



Without knowing what the variable would be, you cannot conclusively claim design detection does anything except remove many of the possibilities.

The ID advocates have searched to find any flaws or blank spots in the theory of evolution and waved flags claiming "There is no proof so it must be intelligent design!".

They had the answer they wanted, and then they shaped the questions and the research to get them there. That is the opposite of science.

 

[Canceled2]

When they use design detection in seeking to explain cause of deaths or fires, they are starting with known factors. We know how fire burns given certain amounts of oxygen, fuel and time. And they look for patterns that would not follow that natural progression that we have researched and observed. This is completely different than the ID claims would be.

Also, the design detection used in SETI is simply a way to filter all random and abstract designs out. For example, straight lines are noted. They do not mean there is intelligent design. They are just far less common in a random or natural setting.



Without knowing what the variable would be, you cannot conclusively claim design detection does anything except remove many of the possibilities.

The ID advocates have searched to find any flaws or blank spots in the theory of evolution and waved flags claiming "There is no proof so it must be intelligent design!".

They had the answer they wanted, and then they shaped the questions and the research to get them there. That is the opposite of science.

Yes, and when trying to support and explain a theory you start with an assumption.

Here the assumption is that life is a specified complexity whose biologic makeup is intelligent.

Specified complexity, which contends that certain objects or attributes could not have reasonably developed by blind chance, implicates design as a root cause. "There's only one way evolutionary biology can defeat intelligent design, and that is by in fact solving the problem that it claimed all along to have solved but in fact never did - to account for the emergence of multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems (many of which display irreducible and minimal complexity) apart from teleology or design."

http://www.counterbalance.net/id-wd/cansp-frame.html

 

[Cancel3]

Yes, and when trying to support and explain a theory you start with an assumption.

Here the assumption is that life is a specified complexity whose biologic makeup is intelligent.

Specified complexity, which contends that certain objects or attributes could not have reasonably developed by blind chance, implicates design as a root cause. "There's only one way evolutionary biology can defeat intelligent design, and that is by in fact solving the problem that it claimed all along to have solved but in fact never did - to account for the emergence of multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems (many of which display irreducible and minimal complexity) apart from teleology or design."

http://www.counterbalance.net/id-wd/cansp-frame.html

And most of those "multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems" that have been used by the ID advocates have been compared to systems with fewer parts and less integration. Like the example of they eye that I mentioned earlier.

Holes in the fossil and historical records do not prove anything except the randomness of the media that we have to research.

In fact, the massive number of extinct animals and deadend lines do more to disprove intelligent design than the minor flaws in evolution do to lend creedence to ID.

Why would an intelligence design so many life forms that failed?

As far as intelligent design being used to explain the origins of life, its still unscientific.

It reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. Three scientists are looking at a complex mathematical formula spread over 3 blackboards. The first and third boards are full of complex formulas. The middle board simple has the words "And then a Miracle happens". One of the scientists is saying "I think you need to be a little more specific about step two".

 

[Cancel3]

Yes, and when trying to support and explain a theory you start with an assumption.

Actually, in order to begin working towards a theory, you start with an observation, not an assumption. Once sufficient observations have been made, they researcher might make the assumption that the observation would be recurring in other situations.

 

[Good Luck]

GL,

I tire of having to define every term to every different participant.

An observed fact is something known through observation. A theory is a notion not verifiable through observation, that has been tested and to date, not falsified.

An apple falling to the earth is an observed fact. The prediction that it will happen might be a test of several theories. But it is going to happen, without some present condition consistent with gravity. It's good enough to be considered fact. You can waste your time considering the possibilities if you like. It does not make you scientific. It makes you a dumbass.

We have certainly observed evolution. Some will argue we have observed speciation, I won't bother because it is too dependent on another definition and zzZZzz.

The main argument against evolution and for ID by tards like Dixie is that it does not explain origins. But ID does not answer the question any better. Your response has nothing to do with ID.

Dixie,

We can test evolution against the fossil record. If there were no variation in the fossil record that would falsify evolution and all theories concerning it. Fuck, you are dumb.

And out comes the overeducated moron pretending to know something.

Any testable hypothesis depends on observation to determine outcome. You drop a hammer, it falls. You have observed an event, and recorded the fact of said event. That is an observed fact. There are, of course, other types of facts, such as 2+2=4. We can use some facts to derive others.

But observed facts are the primary basis of scientific method. An hypothesis makes a prediction, an experiment is conducted, and the OBSERVED outcome (fact) either confirms or contradicts the prediction of the hypothesis.

You can call a prediction a fact if you like, but that makes you the dumbass, not me. I did not claim any "possibility" that the prediction a dropped hammer will fall may be incorrect. But until it happens, it is not fact, but prediction. The prediction may be 100% probable, but it is still not a fact until the hammer falls. Only a poor scientist (or ignorant twit) mistakes fact for prediction or vice versa. This is science. Precision of both method, observation, and definition is essential for consistent outcomes. "As good as" does not cut it.

 

[Canceled2]

And most of those "multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems" that have been used by the ID advocates have been compared to systems with fewer parts and less integration. Like the example of they eye that I mentioned earlier.

Holes in the fossil and historical records do not prove anything except the randomness of the media that we have to research.

In fact, the massive number of extinct animals and deadend lines do more to disprove intelligent design than the minor flaws in evolution do to lend creedence to ID.

Why would an intelligence design so many life forms that failed?

As far as intelligent design being used to explain the origins of life, its still unscientific.

It reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago. Three scientists are looking at a complex mathematical formula spread over 3 blackboards. The first and third boards are full of complex formulas. The middle board simple has the words "And then a Miracle happens". One of the scientists is saying "I think you need to be a little more specific about step two".

So, apart from your silly attempt to prove your assertion by giving a lame cartoon, what proof do you have that the fossil record disproves ID?

As to extinct lines; which ones are due to bad design and not to natural causes i.e climate changes or hunting, pollution, or the destruction of the places where they live?

 

[Timshel]

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions
By Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt
Among the many, many errors in Judge John Jones’ Dover vs. Kitzmiller opinion is the charge that intelligent design (ID) makes no empirically testable claims (see pp. 66 ff.). Similarly, other ID critics assert that intelligent design makes no testable predictions.1 In fact, intelligent design fulfills both criteria since it makes numerous empirically testable predictions.

It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists. Nevertheless, the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable,2 and involve testable predictions.

If it is not falsifiable it is not science and it is not testable. As the author writes any test is pointless.

How does one test and discredit Behe’s claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe’s means of detecting such design would have been falsified.

So then the test is not of design but the method of detecting design.

 

[ib1yysguy]

If it is not falsifiable it is not science and it is not testable. As the author writes any test is pointless.



So then the test is not of design but the method of detecting design.

Not to mention, that's already been looked at and it's been settled. Flagellum evolved from the syringe-like unit found on similar bacteria that contain the same protein structures.

 

[Canceled2]

If it is not falsifiable it is not science and it is not testable. As the author writes any test is pointless.



So then the test is not of design but the method of detecting design.

He said it was falsifiable.

One must conclude if a test can prove design within a biologic system then intelligent design can be called a valid scientific theory. At least in as much as evolution can be called a theory based on its tests to prove natural causes within a biologic system.

 

[Timshel]

GL

Fact does not mean absolute certainty. We can't be completely certain about the observed falling hammer. So, yes, close is good enough in science.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[Timshel]

He said it was falsifiable.

No, I quoted and bolded the section where your source said it was not falsifiable. Here it is again...

It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists.

One must conclude if a test can prove design within a biologic system then intelligent design can be called a valid scientific theory. At least in as much as evolution can be called a theory based on its tests to prove natural causes within a biologic system.

Okay, what test is going to prove design? If it fails, is that proof that design is false, or as your author said proof that the test was false.

 

[Damocles]

No, I quoted and bolded the section where your source said it was not falsifiable. Here it is again...





Okay, what test is going to prove design? If it fails, is that proof that design is false, or as your author said proof that the test was false.

It would be nice if the artist signed his work.

 

[Canceled2]

No, I quoted and bolded the section where your source said it was not falsifiable. Here it is again...

And you should have boldened the whole thing

Nevertheless, the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable,2 and involve testable predictions.

Okay, what test is going to prove design? If it fails, is that proof that design is false, or as your author said proof that the test was false.

I would ask you the same with regards to evolution. You know, that theory that has not been proven.

In Dembski's words:

FALSIFIABILITY: Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after _Darwin's Black Box_ appeared remarked, "We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, "But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution."

The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? Hardly. I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism. In place of such a concession one is instead always treated to an admission of ignorance. Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its historical context to determine how the Darwinian mechanism might have produced it.

For instance, to neutralize the challenge that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum raises against Darwinism, Ken Miller employs the following argument from ignorance. Like the rest of the biological community, Miller doesn't know how the bacterial flagellum originated. The biological community's ignorance about the flagellum, however, doesn't end with its origin but extends to its very functioning. For instance, according to David DeRosier, "The mechanism of the flagellar motor remains a mystery." Miller takes this admission of ignorance by DeRosier and uses it to advantage. In _Finding Darwin's God_ he writes: "Before [Darwinian] evolution is excoriated for failing to explain the evolution of the flagellum, I'd request that the scientific community at least be allowed to figure out how its various parts work." But in the article by DeRosier that Miller cites, Miller conveniently omits the following quote: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human."

So apparently we know enough about the bacterial flagellum to know that it is designed or at least design-like. Indeed, we know what most of its individual parts do. Moreover, we know that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Far from being a weakness of irreducible complexity as Miller suggests, it is a strength of the concept that one can determine whether a system is irreducibly complex without knowing the precise role that each part in the system plays (one need only knock out individual parts and see if function is preserved; knowing what exactly the individual parts do is not necessary). Miller's appeal to ignorance obscures just how much we know about the flagellum, how compelling the case is for its design, and how unfalsifiable Darwinism is when Darwinists proclaim that the Darwinian selection mechanism can account for it despite the absence of any identifiable biochemical pathway.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The only basis you for selecting ID over Evolution is your idea that very complex system could not happen by themselves.

And yet you completely ignore the fact that life started as a very simple system, and gradually became more complex. One of the popular arguments against evolution by the ID advocates is the claim that the eye could not have evolved....

Okay, I stopped here because once again, you are trying to make this EVOLUTION VS. INTELLIGENT DESIGN.... and THAT is not debatable. It is not debatable because, 1. Both theories are a matter of personal opinion as to validity, and 2. Because Evolution doesn't deal with origin of life!!!!!

The human eye is irreducibly complex. Meaning, it has components which must be in place first, before the eye has any function at all. It was once believed the eye "evolved" from a more primitive photocell-type optical system found in primitive ocean life, but that has been disproved, because they discovered there are parts of the human eye which enable it's function, that are not present in a photocell-type optic system, nor would they randomly just form themselves in such a system for no reason. This is very difficult to explain to someone who is so closed minded, he refused to read the posts and understand the argument is not, nor ever has been, about Evolution vs. ID!

This debate is NOT ABOUT EVOLUTION! It is about the ORIGIN of life, not the EVOLUTION of it! Do I need to just fucking repeat that over and over and over again?

I swear man.... Your fucking head defies science! It seems to be made of some impenetrable amalgam of iron and stone, where nothing can get in... yet, there seems to be some mysterious portal which defies physics and allows your stupidity to spew out onto the message board! I guess, according to your logic, we should assume it is not possible for you to be an intelligent being, since your head defies science and all.

The only basis you for selecting ID over Evolution... I HAVEN'T DONE THIS MORON! YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE THAT THE ARGUMENT AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN!!!! CAN YOU FUCKING GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK IRON/STONE HEAD????? PLEASE???

I accept there is a theory regarding how species evolved. I can accept this theory is logical and worthy of teaching to students in a school as a theory for how things change over time..... I have absolutely NO problem with that, and don't seek to "select" something "over" that.

I am also intelligent enough to know, EVOLUTION doesn't deal with ORIGIN! So, the question remains; How did life originate? There are a number of theories on that... I posted them earlier in this thread, please go back and read the list, if you are failing to comprehend what I am saying to you here. (At this point, Solitary, you should GO BACK AND READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN!) Among the list of possibilities or "theories" for the ORIGIN of life, is Intelligent Design. Whether by a "Deity" or by some OTHER form of Intelligence, it is the concept based in the LOGIC that nothing as complicated, diverse, interdependent, intricately balanced, symmetrically proportioned, meticulously detailed and wondrous as what we know to be living on this planet, could have been the result of RANDOM events.


...And YES, ib1... if it didn't happen by intelligent input, it happened by RANDOM chance! There is no other option.... randomness or intelligently organized and designed... one or the other!

 

[ib1yysguy]

Okay, I stopped here because once again, you are trying to make this EVOLUTION VS. INTELLIGENT DESIGN.... and THAT is not debatable. It is not debatable because, 1. Both theories are a matter of personal opinion as to validity, and 2. Because Evolution doesn't deal with origin of life!!!!!

The human eye is irreducibly complex. Meaning, it has components which must be in place first, before the eye has any function at all. It was once believed the eye "evolved" from a more primitive photocell-type optical system found in primitive ocean life, but that has been disproved, because they discovered there are parts of the human eye which enable it's function, that are not present in a photocell-type optic system, nor would they randomly just form themselves in such a system for no reason. This is very difficult to explain to someone who is so closed minded, he refused to read the posts and understand the argument is not, nor ever has been, about Evolution vs. ID!

This debate is NOT ABOUT EVOLUTION! It is about the ORIGIN of life, not the EVOLUTION of it! Do I need to just fucking repeat that over and over and over again?

I swear man.... Your fucking head defies science! It seems to be made of some impenetrable amalgam of iron and stone, where nothing can get in... yet, there seems to be some mysterious portal which defies physics and allows your stupidity to spew out onto the message board! I guess, according to your logic, we should assume it is not possible for you to be an intelligent being, since your head defies science and all.

The only basis you for selecting ID over Evolution... I HAVEN'T DONE THIS MORON! YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE THAT THE ARGUMENT AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN!!!! CAN YOU FUCKING GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK IRON/STONE HEAD????? PLEASE???

I accept there is a theory regarding how species evolved. I can accept this theory is logical and worthy of teaching to students in a school as a theory for how things change over time..... I have absolutely NO problem with that, and don't seek to "select" something "over" that.

I am also intelligent enough to know, EVOLUTION doesn't deal with ORIGIN! So, the question remains; How did life originate? There are a number of theories on that... I posted them earlier in this thread, please go back and read the list, if you are failing to comprehend what I am saying to you here. (At this point, Solitary, you should GO BACK AND READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN!) Among the list of possibilities or "theories" for the ORIGIN of life, is Intelligent Design. Whether by a "Deity" or by some OTHER form of Intelligence, it is the concept based in the LOGIC that nothing as complicated, diverse, interdependent, intricately balanced, symmetrically proportioned, meticulously detailed and wondrous as what we know to be living on this planet, could have been the result of RANDOM events.


...And YES, ib1... if it didn't happen by intelligent input, it happened by RANDOM chance! There is no other option.... randomness or intelligently organized and designed... one or the other!

Ignoring 99 percent of that and addressing the last lie in there: No, it's not random. Natural selection is the driving force, not intelligence. Natural selection is not random.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ignoring 99 percent of that and addressing the last lie in there: No, it's not random. Natural selection is the driving force, not intelligence. Natural selection is not random.

Natural selection is an attribute of evolution theory, it has nothing to do with the origin of life. Natural selection is actually supportive of the argument for an intelligent designer. It is part of the intricate system which works in harmony together to enable propagation of life.... part of an obviously 'organized and designed plan' from some source of intelligence.

"It just so happens" doesn't cut it... The laws of probability predict this is not possible, that all of the elements required for life to exist as we now know it, to have been the result of randomness, is virtually impossible. Natural selection purports to explain how the mechanics of evolution work, but any mechanism we find in our physical world, is the product of design. Mechanisms do not occur by random chance, so Natural selection could not have happened by random chance.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You guys are still stuck on some warped fallacy about what ID is. In your idiot minds, you have concluded it is about "religious hocus pocus" and you have dismissed the possibilities without any further examination. You have misunderstood ID to be something it is not, a purely faith-based concept of God magically creating life in 7 days... to you, that is what ID represents, and that is a totally false assumption on your part.

I have tried to take it out of the realm of "religious faith" and show you, there is a basis in logic to surmise, life is too irreducible and complex, too interdependent and intricately balanced, and too obvious of organization to be the product of random event. Not only is life itself that way, but the planet, the very environment in which life exists, is too intricately balanced and precisely organized, to be the result of random occurrences. Look around... do you see any more Earth's? Our planet is unique in our solar system, and perhaps unique in the universe. Many, many things had to happen in a precise manner, in a particular order, and to a specific degree, to even enable life as we know it to exist. Again, the mere laws of probability preclude these things from just occurring randomly by happenstance, they are indicative of some source of intelligent design.

We don't have to debate WHAT that source of intelligence is, to reason there may have been one. This isn't a "religious" argument, it is a logical argument, based on reason and probability. And no one is stating this is a FACT... it's a theory, like other theories, it's not proven and can't be proved. However, there is enormous evidence to support the theory, you just need to open your eyes to possibility.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists. Nevertheless, the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable,2 and involve testable predictions.

Well you just made the point that ID is not science. If you cannot falsify, in principle, that a cosmic designer exist then you've just placed ID outside the realm of science.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The flagellum's "irreducible complexity" has been debunked by scientists already. They have shown a clear line though which evolution can produce it in steps without each step being totally useless.

I'll link you if you're interested, but I know you're not.

Since that's the test Ice Dancer thinks is the one that can falsify ID, then I guess ID has been conclusively falsified.

Interesting how they completely ignore the evolutionary principle of xaptation.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The most important fact of the debate is that the use of a totally unknown and unquantified force as the main point of the theory puts it outside the range of a scientific model.

Untrue.

Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

Please back that up. Show me the specific tests involved. Show me where they have been published in peer review articles. Show me where the testing of ID has been independently verified. As I've stated before I'm a biologist and I'm unaware on any. Do a google search on peer reviewed research on ID and you come up with nothing where as you get thousands of hits on evolution research.