Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 2 of 95 (56792)
09-21-2003 3:11 PM 		Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
09-21-2003 12:38 PM

To date, IDists make claims about how random genetic mutation is always bad for the changee.
​
I haven't been able to figure out yet just hwat IDists do claim. You may be setting up a strawman here.
​
The little I have read of ID ideas is that some steps in the diversification of life can not happen through individual evolutionary steps and must have had some sort of "outside" intervention. I'm not sure there is more to it than that. Clearly some of the IDist otherwise accept an old earth and a full range of evolutionary change. What others want to say I'm not at all sure.
​
I don't think that the idea that all mutations are harmful is part of anything that could fairly be called ID. Can anyone clarify this?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2003 12:38 PM Silent H has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2003 4:37 PM NosyNed has replied
  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 4 of 95 (56811)
09-21-2003 6:31 PM 		Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
09-21-2003 4:37 PM

I see, you are right.
​
The whole ID thing is so muddled it is hard to figure out what they are espousing. Thanks
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 09-21-2003 4:37 PM Silent H has not replied
  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 13 of 95 (57246)
09-23-2003 4:11 PM 		Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
09-23-2003 3:51 PM

What is this "protein family" thing? It is something I haven't heard of before. What is it that distinguishes one family from another?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2003 3:51 PM Silent H has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2003 3:02 PM NosyNed has not replied
  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 46 of 95 (58798)
09-30-2003 3:42 PM 		Reply to: Message 45 by Warren
09-30-2003 2:53 PM

Re: Testable ID hypotheses
please explain how the mousetrap-flagellum analogy relates to epistemology and not explanations of speciation.
​
Did you explain this? Why is the mousetrap-flagellum example whipped ( ) to death?
​
might not the origin of biological complexity involve both teleological and non-teleological explanations?>>
​
And why would the teleological explanations be added? Since there is no reason (as yet ) to do so?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Warren, posted 09-30-2003 2:53 PM Warren has not replied
  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 59 of 95 (60024)
10-07-2003 11:15 PM 		Reply to: Message 58 by Warren
10-07-2003 4:11 PM

Re: Testable ID hypotheses
On the other hand, there are possible data that could thwart a design inference but can you suggest any data that would cause you to doubt the flagellum was the product of blind watchmaking?
​
Mammuthus: You could falsify it by showing that none of the proteins in the flagellum or their genes were shared among any organisms. That the genes and proteins were completely non homologous to any other genes an/or proteins in other organisms where they are used for different functions. i.e. if a gradual natural process occurred there should be some evidence left behind of the incremental steps. ...and how exactly do you falsify the idea that it was designed intelligently?
​
Why do I misunderstand this? Mammuthus seems to have given you exactly what you asked for. If he didn't why isn't it? You'll have to use pretty simple words for me. Since I read the above 3 times and can't see what is missing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Warren, posted 10-07-2003 4:11 PM Warren has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 10-07-2003 11:27 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 63 by Warren, posted 10-08-2003 3:00 PM NosyNed has not replied
  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 61 of 95 (60039)
10-08-2003 1:43 AM 		Reply to: Message 60 by Brad McFall
10-07-2003 11:27 PM

Re: Testable ID hypotheses
Brad, do you have a program to produce these too? Amazing!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 10-07-2003 11:27 PM Brad McFall has not replied
  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 84 of 95 (61209)
10-16-2003 1:43 PM 		Reply to: Message 82 by Warren
10-16-2003 1:21 PM

Re: Testable ID hypotheses
Warren, I am being a bit lazy and don't want to try and reconstruct the twists and turns of the whole thread. Can you help by laying this out in step by step fashion, with bullets perhaps?
​
I would expect to see a prediction which could be checked that would be different from the non-telogical (ID?) approach. I haven't seen enough detail in the thread to make it clear to me. Perhaps for those of us who don't understand the jargon you could explain that too.
​
That's a fair amount of trouble, but it might make you case clearer.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Warren, posted 10-16-2003 1:21 PM Warren has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Warren, posted 10-16-2003 1:56 PM NosyNed has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024