|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,834 Year: 4,091/9,624 Month: 962/974 Week: 289/286 Day: 10/40 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2520 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The topic here is not any preceived shortfalls of evolutionary theory (about which you have your facts wrong) but an explanation of ID.
Please stick to the topic at hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I am sure Golfer can respond for himself, but it seems to me he was focussing on the evidence for ID.
Nuggin, ID is not a religious theory, simply that Toe's missing links is the scientific evidence that validates ID. The scientists that have or are turning to ID realize the missing transitional fossils only supports the ID premise. If missing transitionals were not missing, then Toe would be validated. ID being not a religious theory but based on sound scientific evidence has no reason to go to the age of the fossil because the missing links would still be missing. The fossil record simply does not lie. To an ID scientist the only missing link not missing is Intelligent Design. The evolutionist sees the fossil record and says there must be vast gaps within the fossil record since ToE must be true. The IDer sees the fossil record as inconsistent with ToE, but very consistent and strong evidence for ID. What's the problem? The data is the fossil record, and there is clearly an argument being made that it backs ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I imagine it depends a lot on what flavour of ID you are touting. I would have thought that if anything the fossil record would be more use for those espousing a more radical form of special creation than that usually put forward by the proponents of ID.
How can gaps in the fossil record be evidence for ID? Oh wait, I get it 'ID of the Gaps', nuff said. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-Dec-2005 05:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
I would have to disagree with the claim that there aren't any ID supporters at EVC. However, I have heard the complaint that very few are willing to engage in debate anymore -- except of course in forums that they control and where they are able to silence and/or edit their opponents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The data is the fossil record, and there is clearly an argument being made that it backs ID. Which of the major IDists make this claim? We seem to have arguments from Behe and others about biochemical pathways that don't fossilize at all. Gaps between taxonomic groups where there is no suggestion that these can't be crossed in small steps are not of interest to neo-paleyists. Only those in the original YEC creationist cults that do not understand "ID" think that there is any support for their views. The major IDists are actually supporting and old earth and evolution as biology accepts that it unfolded. What they argue about is the details of the actual mechanism. I'm surprised that you would want to join with that camp at all. The lack of a particular piece of fossil evidence is NOT support for ID. ID supposes that specific steps can not be managed none of those steps are the size that span major taxonomic groups or that can fossilize. This is, of course, because there is evidence for such spanning via evolutionary pathways of the parts that can be expected to be found in fossils. The steps that ID is fussing with are bacterial flagella and blood clotting pathways. These is the neo-paleyists issues. They do not suggest that there will be gaps in the fossil record. I hope you aren't going back to the original stuff of old paleyists which has long been done away with which is why the neo-paleyists had to come up with new material.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The IDers here on this forum have made these claims based on evidence in the fossil record, which is why I stuck up for The Golfer when you claimed he was not citing evidence for ID.
Now, I can't say I am as well-read on all of the IDers as perhaps you are, but seems to me they have used the fossil argument to state it does not support evolutionary models. I suppose we could scan the Discovery Institute or some place like that. You really think we wouldn't find this argument there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This thread is for just such explanations of exactly what ID is.
Why don't you tell us what the discovery institute, Behe et al have to say? No one here has show how ID is supported by the fossil evidence since no one here has said how the designs are implemented or the genome is "tweaked" to overcome the supposed hurdle of IC. All we have so far is the general case put forward that somethings are "too complex" or the specific case of irreducibly complex parts (such as a flagellum or blood clotting). Neither level applies to anything that fossilizes. Unless, of course, the reptilean to mammalian jaw was ever put forward by some now embarrased proponent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I suppose we could scan the Discovery Institute or some place like that. You really think we wouldn't find this argument there? Out of curiousity, I did a quick keyword search, and only two hits came up on the Discovery Institute website. They were press-release-type articles that didn't go into much detail about the fossil record. Interestingly, this is the closest thing I could find to a list of problems the institute has with evolution:
Discovery Institute writes: Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution include unresolved debates amongst scientists over issues such as the peppered moth, the myth of human gill slits, Haeackel's embryos, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution address problems for which adequate solutions have not been presented. Those are the four things they came up with? First, the Miller-Urey experiment deals with abiogenesis theory, not evolution. Haeckel and the gill slits are essentially the same issue, an issue of scientific dishonesty that has been known for 100+ years (though apparently some textbook editors were late on figuring that one out...). Peppered moths? Is that really still an issue? Seems to me, the Discovery Institute cannot come up with a single decent criticism/threat to theory of evolution, so they trot out these silly examples from decades/centuries past. Thinking about it, claims regarding fossil record gaps seem pretty good compared to what they came up with... In any case, regarding the "substance" of Golfer's original point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Darwin didn't understand genetics, nor did evos for a long time, and have imo way overblown the randomness claims, but you aren't saying it wasn't science.
You can read some a peer-reviewed paper's comments here:
The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time. To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520). Further, several recent discoveries and analyses suggest that these morphological gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil record (Foote 1997, Foote et al. 1999, Benton & Ayala 2003, Meyer et al. 2003), suggesting that the fossil record is at least approximately reliable (Conway Morris 2003b:505). As a result, debate now exists about the extent to which this pattern of evidence comports with a strictly monophyletic view of evolution (Conway Morris 1998a, 2003a, 2003b:510; Willmer 1990, 2003). Further, among those who accept a monophyletic view of the history of life, debate exists about whether to privilege fossil or molecular data and analyses. Those who think the fossil data provide a more reliable picture of the origin of the Metazoan tend to think these animals arose relatively quickly--that the Cambrian explosion had a “short fuse.” (Conway Morris 2003b:505-506, Valentine & Jablonski 2003). Some (Wray et al. 1996), but not all (Ayala et al. 1998), who think that molecular phylogenies establish reliable divergence times from pre-Cambrian ancestors think that the Cambrian animals evolved over a very long period of time--that the Cambrian explosion had a “long fuse.” This review will not address these questions of historical pattern. Instead, it will analyze whether the neo-Darwinian process of mutation and selection, or other processes of evolutionary change, can generate the form and information necessary to produce the animals that arise in the Cambrian. This analysis will, for the most part, 2 therefore, not depend upon assumptions of either a long or short fuse for the Cambrian explosion, or upon a monophyletic or polyphyletic view of the early history of life. (edit to adjust format of long url - AdminNWR)
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id... This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-05-2005 11:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I guess you have a problem reading then.
ww.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view... In any case, regarding the "substance" of Golfer's original point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Uh, this would be funny if I thought you would get it. IDers are not the ones arguing that evidence they don't have exists, nor that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That's just a bunch of evo spin doctoring. No, IDer are just looking at the actual evidence,the totality of it, and instead of trying to warp the evidence to fit some preconceived model, they are building a theory based on actual evidence. The fossil record in toto fits ID, and does not fit ToE. Sudden appearance and stasis are widespread and prevalent features of the fossil record. Unfortunately for you guys, evolution is not. (adjusted long url format - AdminNWR)This message has been edited by randman, 12-06-2005 12:35 AM This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-05-2005 11:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I guess you have a problem reading then. Yep. You found a paper published by an IDer that mentions fossil record "gaps". Didn't show up in my Discovery Institute site search. That doesn't change the fact that the Discovery Institute itself doesn't seem to espouse fossil record gaps as pro-ID.
No, IDer are just looking at the actual evidence,the totality of it... they are building a theory based on actual evidence. I do the same thing. I haven't seen or heard the invisible silent monkeys in my house today, so that must mean that they are still silent and still invisible. Tricky monkeys.
The fossil record in toto fits ID, and does not fit ToE. Sudden appearance and stasis are widespread and prevalent features of the fossil record. Unfortunately for you guys, evolution is not. WOW. You just went from not being sure if the fossil record was even cited by the ID camp to being expert enough in the arguments to make the statement "the fossil record in toto fits ID" Since you are so well versed in the topic at hand, please explain to me exactly how Intelligent Design theory predicts and is confirmed by our current knowledge of the fossil record. Then explain to me why such an explanation is a more parsimonius one then that of the Theory of Evolution. Thanks in advance for enlightening me... apparently me no think so good:
Uh, this would be funny if I thought you would get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Tell you what. I have already discussed this in prior threads. Why don't you do some searching under whale evolution and fossils, and maybe sometime later, we can do a great debate discussing the fossil record in toto or more narrowly, the issue of predicted fossils by ToE and ID theories, and we can discuss creationist predictions as a sideline.
sound good?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
sound good? Not particularly. If you aren't interested in even briefly explaining how ID theory predicts/is confirmed by the fossil record, then you shouldn't be making such a strong assertion in a science forum. "Go search for when I mentioned it before" isn't properly supporting your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I have posted pages and pages on it already. Maybe you should take some time to read them. But I can understand if you don't want to debate one-on-one. It's not for everyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6050 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Read the forum rules lately?
4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions. 5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. 6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line. Since you've violated all of these above (messages #84, #85, and #87), I suggest you either elaborate and support your strong assertion, or retract it. I'm not sure why you are hiding behind a condescending attitude, claims that you've posted it before, and some bizarre need for a great debate. You've already expended more energy explaining why you won't explain it than if you had just explained it in the first place.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024