Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Study of Intelligent Design Debate
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 210 (1046)
12-20-2001 8:27 PM


This seems to be a good new topic, to discuss what is evidence of intelligent design, or refutations for why there isn't intelligent design in anything. Discuss, debate, exchange Ideas. I'll be happy to respond to anyones perspectives and ideas. Try to keep the amount of examples if you have a vast list to as minimum as you can, explain why you think it is or isn't intelligent design, I used to get long lists and it was just troublesom to respond to.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-31-2001]

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 210 (1047)
12-20-2001 8:34 PM


Just to start us off lets begin with the giraffe, I noticed the giraffe design argument topic, I flipped through it and didn't find anything interesting, lets start it in a whole 'design argument topic' rather than a 'giraffe argument' so we can move with the whole intelligent design attitude within these threads.
If one feature did change, would it not affect the whole? Let's consider the giraffe.
The giraffe is a mammal, therefore much of its anatomy is similar to that of other mammals. Like most other mammals, the giraffe has seven neck bones. What if it did not have seven bones between the shoulders and the base of the skull? Man's short neck supports a perfectly balanced head in the erect posture with very little effort. The giraffe's huge head must be held aloft at all times. When standing, nearly half of its approximately 225-kilogram (500 pound) neck muscles are in tension. The amount of muscle required is directly related to the number of joints that must be supported. Reducing the joints to just two, at the skull and at the chest, would reduce the weight considerably and require less energy for survival. If the shortage of food drove the neck to change, would not the number of neck bones and joints be changeable also by such evolutionary processes? Of course the problem with this design would be a loss of flexibility, and would severely increase breakability if the giraffe received a blow to the head or neck.
In the same respect, having a megajointed neck would require the exact opposite - greater energy use and greater muscle mass to be supported. This would cause the giraffe's centre of gravity to shift ahead of the front legs when the head is extended straight forward, causing the hind legs to come off the ground - assuming the front legs were strong enough. Seven neck bones is excellent design.
With the head being so high in the air, the huge heart of the giraffe must be capable of delivering sufficient oxygen-rich blood three metres (10 feet) up to the brain. This would be a problem (involving too high blood pressure) when the giraffe was head-down drinking water, were it not for a unique collection of reinforced artery walls, by-pass and antipooling valves, a web of small blood vessels (the rete mirabile, or 'marvellous net') and pressure-sensing signals that keep adequate blood flow to the brain at just the right pressure. Even to those who consider this as just 'adaptation to high gravitational pressures in its cardiovascular system', the giraffe is unique.
The giraffe's heart is probably the most powerful among animals, because about double normal pressure is required to pump blood up the giraffe's long neck to the brain. With such high blood pressure, only special design features prevent it from 'blowing its mind' when it bends down to take a drink.
Equally marvellous is the fact the blood does not pool in the legs, and a giraffe does not bleed profusely if cut on the leg. The secret lies in an extremely tough skin and an inner fascia that prevents blood pooling. This skin combination has been studied extensively by NASA scientists in their development of gravity-suits for astronauts. Equally helpful to prevent profuse bleeding is that all arteries and veins in the giraffe's legs are very internal.
The capillaries that reach the surface are extremely small, and the red blood cells are about one-third the size of their human counterparts, making capillary passage possible. It quickly becomes apparent that these unique facets of the giraffe are all interactive and interdependent with its long neck.
But there's more. The smaller red blood cells allow for more surface area and a higher and faster absorption of oxygen into the blood. This helps to retain adequate oxygen to all extremities, including the head.
The lungs work in conjunction with the heart to supply the giraffe with the necessary oxygen, but in a way that is unique to the giraffe. The giraffe's lungs are eight times the size of those of humans, and its respiratory rate is about one-third that of humans. Breathing more slowly is necessary in order to exchange the required large volume of air without causing windburn to the giraffe's rippled 3.6 metres (12 feet) of trachea. When the animal takes in a fresh breath, the oxygen-depleted previous breath cannot be totally expelled. For the giraffe this problem is compounded by the long trachea that will retain more dead air than man can inhale in one breath. There must be enough lung volume to make this 'bad air' a small percentage of the total. This is a physics problem that the giraffe has solved.
To add to the wonder, the birth of a newborn giraffe seals the case for an intelligent design. The new calf drops into life from 1.5 metres (five feet) up, as the mother is incapable of comfortably squatting to the ground, and to lie down during birth would be a sure invitation for a lion or other predator to attack the mother. As in all mammals, the head is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the body at birth, and it becomes a challenge to pass it down the birth canal.
The baby giraffe has the added challenge of having a very fragile long neck attaching it to the rest of its 70-kilogram (150-pound) newborn body. If the head came out first, the neck would surely break when the rest of the body fell on top of it. If the head came out last, the neck would surely break as the body weight attempted to jerk the head out of the mother. Such an apparent impasse is solved by the rear hips being much smaller than the front shoulders, and the neck is just long enough to allow the head to pass through the birth canal resting on the rear hips. The hind feet exit first to break the fall on the rest of the animal, The head is supported and cushioned by the rear hips, and the neck is pliable, allowing a sharp bend around the front shoulders.
This is a perfect exit, that would be impossible in any other combination or with any other new length of neck. Within minutes the new calf is gracefully standing between the mother's legs. From birth to adulthood in just four years, the neck grows from being one-sixth to one-third of the giraffe's total height. Such growth is required for the animal to overcome its leg height and to bend to get a drink of water. The calf's first year of food is almost exclusively its mother's rich milk, which can be reached easily.
Ecologically, the giraffe is perfectly matched to its environment. There is need of a tree trimmer to keep the fast-growing shade trees from overshadowing the ground and killing the much needed grass that provides food for the other savanna animals. There is also need of a sentinel that can see above the tall grass and observe the movements of the predator cats. The giraffe is not only tall enough for this, but has excellent eyesight and a curious disposition. After warning other animals with several swishes of the tail, the giraffe boldly strides out of harm's way. The great body height, tough skin layers, deadly rear hoof kick, and long, rapid stride make the adult giraffe an undesirable prey for any carnivore.
To suggest that all of this could have evolved in one class of animal, lacking any conceivable close relatives, and becoming so developed solely due to a supposed lack of food at ground level, is preposterous. Should not others which feed at ground level, being vulnerable to big cats, and being bombarded by the same cosmic radiation, have achieved a more giraffe-like stature?

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 12-22-2001 12:50 PM TrueCreation has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 210 (1073)
12-21-2001 3:19 PM


This should be a question old earthers are dieing to get into, I know all of you guys arent just avoiding this thread because it is too hard. Seeing that creationists love using this as proof that things had to have a designer Im sure you guys would just jump right in, right?

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-22-2001 2:24 PM TrueCreation has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 210 (1115)
12-22-2001 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
12-20-2001 8:34 PM


The cutting and pasting of other people's work without attribution is very strongly discouraged here.
I found your post here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/555.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 12-20-2001 8:34 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 12-22-2001 5:46 PM nator has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 5 of 210 (1117)
12-22-2001 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by TrueCreation
12-21-2001 3:19 PM


Isn't the topic of the giraffe being specifically covered in another previously existing thread?
At:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=26&p=1
Why are you bringing it up again, in a new thread? Go to the above linked for your answers.
Moose
ps: How about a response to my question at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=2&t=20&p=1
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-22-2001]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-22-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by TrueCreation, posted 12-21-2001 3:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 12-22-2001 5:49 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 210 (1121)
12-22-2001 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
12-22-2001 12:50 PM


Is there a problem schrafinator? I have no problem in telling of the source of works. But I see you have a very large problem in trying to 'expose' creationists because their questions are too hard for you to comprehend, and their answers are too vast for you to look over. If not Im very sure you would have much more to say than 'cutting and pasting is discouraging'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 12-22-2001 12:50 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-22-2001 9:22 PM TrueCreation has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 210 (1122)
12-22-2001 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
12-22-2001 2:24 PM


Yes the topic of the giraffe is being covered in another thread and I am aware of it. This thread isn't just about the giraffe, it is about intelligent design in general, no specifics in this thread, I just used the giraffe because it is a very good start. Unless someone would like to move on to another animal, plant, etc. for a topic of discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-22-2001 2:24 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 210 (1130)
12-22-2001 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
12-22-2001 5:46 PM


I'm afraid I've fallen down on the job regarding Forum guidelines. After the site redesign the guidelines no longer appear in any prominent place. Links to the guidelines are listed on the Navigation page, or you can click here:
Debating Guidelines
Part of the problem is that the guidelines should be redesigned to be consistent with the redesign of the site and with the move in emphasis away from formalized debate, so for now let us use the guidelines from the Yahoo site:
Yahoo Guidelines
I'll revise the guidelines and place a link in a place of greater prominence in the near future.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 12-22-2001 5:46 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Retro Crono
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 210 (1135)
12-22-2001 11:49 PM


Here is a nice little SITE I came across, I think it explains the topic at hand better than I could.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 12-26-2001 12:27 AM Retro Crono has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 210 (1282)
12-26-2001 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Retro Crono
12-22-2001 11:49 PM


I wish we could rather discuss this argument in situation in this thread instead of leading through the various links on the internet, anyone can do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Retro Crono, posted 12-22-2001 11:49 PM Retro Crono has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 210 (1367)
12-29-2001 10:37 PM


What I have found in most ID debates is that someone always insists we need to know who designed the designer? As if that makes a difference as to whether or not the apparent design is illusory or not. If that argument held any water it would mean that Stomehenge wasn't designed because we don't know who (or what) designed it.
ID gains momentum every time we take a closer look at life. The closer we look, the more complex it appears to be, and the less likely Darwinian step-by-step processes could be responsible for such complexity. The human genome project is not immune to ID rumblings:
Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine
I, for one, am a proponent of ID as a scientific alternative to materialistic naturalism on the topic of biological evolution. Behe's Darwin's Black Box, along with the likes of Dembski, Johnson, Ratzsch, Wells, Gitt* et al., put forth a very convincing argument for the scientific validity of ID. And as far as I can tell the only argument against ID is philosophical in nature.
I understand the 'system architecture' PoV, which is IMO, genomes can be viewed as a computer OS. The alleged junk DNA is nothing of the kind and although those segments of DNA may not code for a protein, they do have a function in the overall program of an organism. Afterall if every piece of DNA coded for a protein, what would be left to tell those proteins what to do and where to do it?
*Werner Gitt is a Creationist. However his theroms on information enforce the basic premise of ID- which is 'there is more to life than mother nature plus father time can explain'.
------------------
John Paul

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 12-29-2001 11:26 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 144 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 6:53 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 202 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 2:33 AM John Paul has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 210 (1369)
12-29-2001 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by John Paul
12-29-2001 10:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]What I have found in most ID debates is that someone always insists we need to know who designed the designer? As if that makes a difference as to whether or not the apparent design is illusory or not. If that argument held any water it would mean that Stomehenge wasn't designed because we don't know who (or what) designed it.[/QUOTE]
The point of the "...but who designed the designer?" statement is to point out the fact that claiming that an IDer "had" to have designed something doesn't *explain* anything.
All you are doing when you day "Godidit" is introducing greater complexity into the problem.
quote:
ID gains momentum every time we take a closer look at life. The closer we look, the more complex it appears to be, and the less likely Darwinian step-by-step processes could be responsible for such complexity.
Not really, if you look at the history of ID claims. There is no Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. The God of the Gaps idea has a long history of being made smaller and smaller as science unravels ever more complex mysteries about nature.
Currently, the "best" account (Behe's) of the God of the Gaps idea (a.k.a. ID) mentions only a few bits of Molecular Biology. Behe accepts Evolution for everything else, an old Earth, no Flood, etc.
quote:
I, for one, am a proponent of ID as a scientific alternative to materialistic naturalism on the topic of biological evolution. Behe's Darwin's Black Box, along with the likes of Dembski, Johnson, Ratzsch, Wells, Gitt* et al., put forth a very convincing argument for the scientific validity of ID. And as far as I can tell the only argument against ID is philosophical in nature.
[QUOTE]The reason the argument against ID is *only* philosophical is because it is *only* a philosophical argument. There is no positive evidence for ID, and ID does not make testable predictions, therefore it is a philosophical, not a scientific (IOW, emperical)position.
Behe's ideas aren't scientific, although his actual science is valid, which is a BIG step up for the quality of most Creationist works. Then again, he accepts all of mainstream science except for a few points of Molecular Biology, as I stated above.
If Behe's ideas about ID WERE scientific, he would publish them in a professional scientific journal, not a popular press book.
Anyone can say anything they like in a non-peer-reviewed publication and call it science.
Behe's God of the Gaps just assigns "Godidit" to that which we don't understand yet. History is packed full of science eventually explaining what people (religious and otherwise) previously thought was unexplainable and *had* to be caused by a higher power.
I understand the 'system architecture' PoV, which is IMO, genomes can be viewed as a computer OS. The alleged junk DNA is nothing of the kind and although those segments of DNA may not code for a protein, they do have a function in the overall program of an organism. Afterall if every piece of DNA coded for a protein, what would be left to tell those proteins what to do and where to do it?
*Werner Gitt is a Creationist. However his theroms on information enforce the basic premise of ID- which is 'there is more to life than mother nature plus father time can explain'.
[/b]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 12-29-2001 10:37 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 210 (1386)
12-30-2001 12:01 PM


schraf:
The point of the "...but who designed the designer?" statement is to point out the fact that claiming that an IDer "had" to have designed something doesn't *explain* anything.
John Paul:
It explains more about how life came to be than "it just happened in nature over vast amounts of time." Design establishes form, function & purpose. Then we guide our research under that premise. Under that framework we will better understand genetic movements such as recombinations, insertion sequences, gene duplication, deletions and transposons. We will be able to differentiate that genetic activity from randomly occurring copying errors (i.e. point mutations).
Also if there is a purpose for life being here and we have the ability to find that out, it would be ignorant not to figure it out. Or at least make the attempt.
schraf:
All you are doing when you day "Godidit" is introducing greater complexity into the problem.
John Paul:
I disagree. The complexity arises when you say life is nothing but a chance encounter of molecules. And that the diversity of life is just more chance encounters culled by something we call natural selection.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID gains momentum every time we take a closer look at life. The closer we look, the more complex it appears to be, and the less likely Darwinian step-by-step processes could be responsible for such complexity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Not really, if you look at the history of ID claims. There is no Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. The God of the Gaps idea has a long history of being made smaller and smaller as science unravels ever more complex mysteries about nature.
John Paul:
You are confusing today's ID with the ignorance of two plus centuries ago. The 'gaps' you speak of are as wide as the Pacific Ocean IMHO. Especially when it comes to life & this solar system forming (for two examples)
schraf:
Currently, the "best" account (Behe's) of the God of the Gaps idea (a.k.a. ID) mentions only a few bits of Molecular Biology. Behe accepts Evolution for everything else, an old Earth, no Flood, etc.
John Paul:
The fact that evoplution, as in the change of allele frequency over time, has been observed, does not mean all of life's diversity originated at some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, which just happened to be able to self-replicate. And thank Mother Nature for ensuring that self-replication process wasn't perfect. And thank Father Time for giving us the needed excuse when asked to present some actual observable, testable and repeatable data that would substantiate our claims.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, for one, am a proponent of ID as a scientific alternative to materialistic naturalism on the topic of biological evolution. Behe's Darwin's Black Box, along with the likes of Dembski, Johnson, Ratzsch, Wells, Gitt* et al., put forth a very convincing argument for the scientific validity of ID. And as far as I can tell the only argument against ID is philosophical in nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason the argument against ID is *only* philosophical is because it is *only* a philosophical argument. There is no positive evidence for ID, and ID does not make testable predictions, therefore it is a philosophical, not a scientific (IOW, emperical)position.
Behe's ideas aren't scientific, although his actual science is valid, which is a BIG step up for the quality of most Creationist works. Then again, he accepts all of mainstream science except for a few points of Molecular Biology, as I stated above.
John Paul:
First I don't care what anyone accepts. As far as I know Behe could be saying that to protect his job. I am looking for evidence. Evidence that shows the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality can come about by the mechanism proposed by evolutionists. So far all I have seen is speculation based upon the ToE being indicative of reality.
schraf:
If Behe's ideas about ID WERE scientific, he would publish them in a professional scientific journal, not a popular press book.
Anyone can say anything they like in a non-peer-reviewed publication and call it science.
John Paul:
That doesn't stop the fact that his book is out there, has been responded to and those responses have been squarely rebutted. Science journals do not print book-size articles and are not readily available to the common person. I, for one, appreciate Behe for putting his thoughts on paper so that I may read them. Now, morer than ever, I see I am not alone in thinking there is data being withheld on the difficulties faced by the step-by-step Darwinian process.
schraf:
Behe's God of the Gaps just assigns "Godidit" to that which we don't understand yet. History is packed full of science eventually explaining what people (religious and otherwise) previously thought was unexplainable and *had* to be caused by a higher power.
John Paul:
And just because you can imagine how some organism cudda 'evolved' doen't mean that can be used as evidence that it did evolve.
I understand the 'system architecture' PoV, which is IMO, genomes can be viewed as a computer OS. The alleged junk DNA is nothing of the kind and although those segments of DNA may not code for a protein, they do have a function in the overall program of an organism. Afterall if every piece of DNA coded for a protein, what would be left to tell those proteins what to do and where to do it?
*Werner Gitt is a Creationist. However his theroms on information enforce the basic premise of ID- which is 'there is more to life than mother nature plus father time can explain'.
------------------
John Paul

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 12-30-2001 2:32 PM John Paul has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 210 (1390)
12-30-2001 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John Paul
12-30-2001 12:01 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]schraf:
The point of the "...but who designed the designer?" statement is to point out the fact that claiming that an IDer "had" to have designed something doesn't *explain* anything.
John Paul:
It explains more about how life came to be than "it just happened in nature over vast amounts of time." Design establishes form, function & purpose. Then we guide our research under that premise. Under that framework we will better understand genetic movements such as recombinations, insertion sequences, gene duplication, deletions and transposons. We will be able to differentiate that genetic activity from randomly occurring copying errors (i.e. point mutations).[/QUOTE]
Really? We will be able to make predictions about future genetic movements with ID as a guide?
Please provide some examples of these predictions.
quote:
Also if there is a purpose for life being here and we have the ability to find that out, it would be ignorant not to figure it out. Or at least make the attempt.
I say, it doesn't matter why life is here; it matters what we decide to do with it now. Prove me wrong, scientifically.
schraf:All you are doing when you day "Godidit" is introducing greater complexity into the problem.
quote:
John Paul:I disagree. The complexity arises when you say life is nothing but a chance encounter of molecules.
The ToE does not posit this, so it is not a valid criticism of the ToE.
quote:
And that the diversity of life is just more chance encounters culled by something we call natural selection.
What you just explained about NS is very simple, not complex as you claim it to be. A tad too simply stated to be a true representation of the ToE, but simple, nonetheless. The inclusion of a unknown, all-powerful being which is supposed to have major effects upon nature but so far has been undetectable, is much much more complex than the ToE.
What is the nature of the IDer? By what mechanisms do we know that the IDer operates? How do we tell the difference between ID activity and nature? What predictions are made if we assume the existence of an IDer?
It is the very simplicity of the ToE and NS which bothers you. You WANT there to be a great, omnipresent, omnicient, all-powerful supernatural being as the creator of it all, and taking a special interest in humankind.
That is a fine philosophical or religious belief, but just don't pretend it is a scientific theory.
quote:
You are confusing today's ID with the ignorance of two plus centuries ago. The 'gaps' you speak of are as wide as the Pacific
Ocean IMHO. Especially when it comes to life & this solar system forming (for two examples)
ID makes the same God of the Gaps logical error; the argument from ignorance. It doesn't matter how big or small the gaps are; equating, "I don't know" with "Godidit", has a long history of failure.
quote:
John Paul:The fact that evoplution, as in the change of allele frequency over time, has been observed, does not mean all of life's
diversity originated at some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms, which just happened to be able toself-replicate. And thank Mother Nature for ensuring that self-replication process wasn't perfect. And thank Father Time for giving us the needed excuse when asked to present some actual observable, testable and repeatable data that would substantiate our claims.
You are claiming that an IDer exists. Provide evidence.
You are claiming that ID is scientific. Provide a Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design, complete with posisive evidence, testable hypotheses, and potential falsifications.
schraf: If Behe's ideas about ID WERE scientific, he would publish them in a professional scientific journal, not a popular press book.
Anyone can say anything they like in a non-peer-reviewed publication and call it science.
quote:
John Paul:That doesn't stop the fact that his book is out there, has been responded to and those responses have been squarely
rebutted.
The book boils down to God of the Gaps, and that can't be rebutted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
quote:
Science journals do not print book-size articles and are not readily available to the common person.
Behe could have easily put together a article-sized paper for publication, but he didn't because it isn't a scientific work. He proposes no Scientific Theory of ID. He makes no predictions, and the logical fallacy is glaring out from the pages.
quote:
I, for one,appreciate Behe for putting his thoughts on paper so that I may read them. Now, morer than ever, I see I am not alone in
thinking there is data being withheld on the difficulties faced by the step-by-step Darwinian process.
There's no data being withheld. It's the faulty logic, the lack of a theory, and the fact that ID does not produce any predictions that would keep it from publication.
schraf:Behe's God of the Gaps just assigns "Godidit" to that which we don't understand yet. History is packed full of science eventually explaining what people (religious and otherwise) previously thought was unexplainable and *had* to be caused by a higher power.
quote:
John Paul:And just because you can imagine how some organism cudda 'evolved' doen't mean that can be used as evidence that it did
evolve.
Because we can explain a POSSIBLE naturalistic model means that it is not IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore, an IDer does not HAVE to be invoked. That is the argument from ignorance again.
quote:
I understand the 'system architecture' PoV, which is IMO, genomes can be viewed as a computer OS. The alleged junk DNA is
nothing of the kind
Evidence for this assertion.
quote:
and although those segments of DNA may not code for a protein, they do have a function in the overall program of an organism.
Evidence that this is the case, please.
quote:
Afterall if every piece of DNA coded for a protein, what would be left to tell those proteins what to do and where to do it?
We know the gene sequences that do this; they are called "control sequences". Do you really think you are the only person to have thpought of that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John Paul, posted 12-30-2001 12:01 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 210 (1396)
12-30-2001 5:20 PM


schraf, this link is for people like you:
[a href="http://www.idthink.net/mars/index.htm"]IDers are From Mars, ID Critics are From Venus[/a]
ID says nothing about God.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul:And just because you can imagine how some organism cudda 'evolved' doen't mean that can be used as evidence that it did
evolve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Because we can explain a POSSIBLE naturalistic model means that it is not IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore, an IDer does not HAVE to be invoked. That is the argument from ignorance again.
John Paul:
Imagination is no substitute or evidence. "just-so' stories are best kept for fairy tales and such.
schraf:Behe's God of the Gaps just assigns "Godidit" to that which we don't understand yet. History is packed full of science eventually explaining what people (religious and otherwise) previously thought was unexplainable and *had* to be caused by a higher power.
John Paul:
That is not what IDists or Creationist do. Why do you misrepresent us? We observe the specified complexity that is life and attribute it to something other than nature acting with time.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the 'system architecture' PoV, which is IMO, genomes can be viewed as a computer OS. The alleged junk DNA is
nothing of the kind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Evidence for this assertion.
John Paul:
ID friendly evolution
also
(added via edit)
Behe responds to critics
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-30-2001]
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-30-2001]

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 12-31-2001 12:36 AM John Paul has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024