Intelligent Design Creationism

LM:
Being that 90% of all species to ever exist are extinct, I would say yes. You can also see incremental changes in morphology, such as the mammalian middle ear and the legs of horses. We can also see the incremental increase in brain size among homo species over time.John Paul:
Nice try but that is FAR from reality. No where in the fossil record do we find a partial wing (for example). Mammalian middle ear? You do realize there is more to being a mammal than the middle ear. All we could be seeing is a better hearing reptile. Horse legs? The horse is still a horse (even foregoing the arguments against the alleged horse evo).LM:
First of all, IC systems can evolve through the pathways of coaption and subtraction. That is, unrelated parts can slowly be improved, step by step, until they are a cohesive unit. Or in the case of subtraction, the bridging step between non-IC and IC is due to the removal of "scaffolding". As an analogy, without scaffolding it is impossible to build certain types of buildings. If we see a tall building without any scaffolding around it, should we assume that the impossible has been accomplished? Of course not, since the scaffolding has long since been removed.John Paul:
Assertion not substantiated with evidence. Scaffolding has been rebutted.LM:
Evolution has shown that design and information within biological systems can be attributed to a blind algorithm called random mutation and natural selection.John Paul:
LoL! IF it has it has done so with rhetoric and not evidence.LM:
Flagellum: mutations within the type III secretory system.John Paul:
Too bad phylogenetic analysis shows IF ANYTHING the type III evolved from the flagellum. Also only what 10 proteins are homologuous? That nleaves quite a bit unaccounted for.LM:
Vision: incremental improvements from photosensitive spot to lensed eye, of which all steps can be seen in extant species.John Paul:
OK where did the photo-sensitive spot come from? And just because different eyes exist in different species does NOT mean the vision system evolved or could evolve.LM:
Blood clotting: Duplication of serine protease genes that coapt into a clotting cascade, and the cascade is different in quite a few mammals which is what we would expect from the branching tree that is evolution.John Paul:
Refuted by Behe.LM:
Cilia: can't say on this one right now, but if you want to discuss this one further I can study up.John Paul:
It looks like you have quite the work left with the other three.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Has an intelligent designer ever been observed changing the morphology of organisms? No.
John Paul:
Neither ID or Creation state that happens. Go figure...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
If an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology, why are you using morphology as evidence for an intelligent designer?John Paul:
Can any evoltionist read? I NEVER said an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology. I said, tried to imply, that the IDer doesn't come down and change the morphology.Why is it that evolutionists think they can debate a topic they are obviously oblivious to?

What describes a mammal? Three bones in the ear, hair, and mammary glands. Seeing as how hair and glands don't preserve very well, the middle ear is all we can find in fossils to determine whether or not it's a mammal.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

You do realize there is more to being a mammal than the middle ear.Perdition:
What describes a mammal? Three bones in the ear, hair, and mammary glands.John Paul:
Keep going. The list is much longer than that.Perdition:
Seeing as how hair and glands don't preserve very well, the middle ear is all we can find in fossils to determine whether or not it's a mammal.John Paul:
If that is the case then we really don't know what the (fossil) organism is (with the mammal-like middle ear). BTW there still isn't any evidence that mutations culled by selection led to the alleged change in the middle ear.

What else is there. I admit that I'm not exactly well-versed on this subject, but I did just take a class called Life Of The Past, and according to my proffessor, thjose three things are the only things that differentiate a mammal from any other vertebrate.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

There are also fossil lines showing the gradual progression from many jaw bones to few, and the migration of some of these original jaw bones back toward the ear, where they vibrate by sound, thereby giving mammals better hearing than say reptiles.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

quote:

---

Nice try but that is FAR from reality. No where in the fossil record do we find a partial wing (for example).

---

No where in the parts of the fossil record we have looked at so far. We have not looked through the entire fossil record yet. Also, much of it has been destroyed through tectonic plate subduction. Maybe you should go out on a limb and tell me we will NEVER find a half wing. Of course, I have yet to meet a creationist that will put forth a potential falsification of special creation.Also, what we find with Archaeopteryx is a full wing and fully developed feathers. What we also find is about 15 characteristics only found in reptiles and not found in any extant bird. This makes it a transitional fossil. Why don't we find half birds, half mammals? Maybe you could answer that one.

quote:

---

Mammalian middle ear? You do realize there is more to being a mammal than the middle ear. All we could be seeing is a better hearing reptile.

---

Silly rabbit, hand waving is for Rodeo Queens. What we get is a better hearing mammal with a common ancestory with reptiles. Name one reptile with a single dentary bone (jaw bone). Can't, can you. Again, we see creationists denying that transitionals exist while crying out that the transitionals are missing. And yes, there is more to a mammal than the middle ear. For the rest of the evidence for reptile-mammal transitionals, go here. From the same site comes this quote "This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete."[qutoe]Assertion not substantiated with evidence. Scaffolding has been rebutted.[/quote]You accuse me of empty rheotric. Black kettle meet black pot. Even Behe himself admitted that such pathways (ie coaption and scaffolding) could lead to IC systems, but then he back tracks and claims that such pathways are improbable. Again, IC rests on Behe's incredulity.

quote:

---

LM:
Evolution has shown that design and information within biological systems can be attributed to a blind algorithm called random mutation and natural selection.

​

John Paul:
LoL! IF it has it has done so with rhetoric and not evidence.

---

Evidence: Development of information and design of binding sites by mutation and selection. Such an algorithm, once put into motion, will always produce new information and design.

quote:

---

LM:
Flagellum: mutations within the type III secretory system.

​

John Paul:
Too bad phylogenetic analysis shows IF ANYTHING the type III evolved from the flagellum. Also only what 10 proteins are homologuous? That nleaves quite a bit unaccounted for.

---

So it's not an IC system. If you take away everything but 10 parts, it has a new function. The rest of the proteins are not specific to the flagellum alone. Actin, for example, is also used in other places in the cell. Sorry, but the flagellum is hardly a mystery to evolutionary scientists.

quote:

---

LM:
Vision: incremental improvements from photosensitive spot to lensed eye, of which all steps can be seen in extant species.

​

John Paul:
OK where did the photo-sensitive spot come from? And just because different eyes exist in different species does NOT mean the vision system evolved or could evolve.

---

Photosensitive proteins are not that uncommon. All you need is for a specific dermal cell to express a mutated protein that happens to have photosensitive characteristics. Even single celled organisms have photosensitive spots. The fact that we see every step of the evolutionary pathway in extant organisms adds considerable credence to the theory of evolution and the eye.

quote:

---

LM:
Blood clotting: Duplication of serine protease genes that coapt into a clotting cascade, and the cascade is different in quite a few mammals which is what we would expect from the branching tree that is evolution.

​

John Paul:
Refuted by Behe.

---

Link please. Might make for a decent thread on its own, if you are interested.

quote:

---

LM:
Cilia: can't say on this one right now, but if you want to discuss this one further I can study up.

​

John Paul:
It looks like you have quite the work left with the other three.

---

If I put in all of the work, it would be a long post indeed. Perhaps you can pick your favorite one from the four above and start a new thread?

quote:

---

LM:
If an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology, why are you using morphology as evidence for an intelligent designer?

​

John Paul:
Can any evoltionist read? I NEVER said an intelligent designer has nothing to do with morphology. I said, tried to imply, that the IDer doesn't come down and change the morphology.

---

Perhaps you could enlighten me instead of telling me I am wrong each time. It is not up to me to clarify your position.1. Does an Intelligent Designer affect morphology? (yes/no)2. If yes, how does the intelligent designer affect morphology? What are the mechanisms?I hope these questions are broad enough to encompass your position. If not, please give a description.

what mammals have that reptiles do not:
warm blooded (red blood cells without a nucleus); birth to live young; number of chambers in the heart; different eye sight; different hearing; hair; mammary glands; jaw is different; hip joint structure is different; kidney function is different; and brain size is differentThat is all I can remember off the top of my head. I would ask for a refund on that course...

LM:
Of course, I have yet to meet a creationist that will put forth a potential falsification of special creation.John Paul:
I have and so have others. To falsify Creation AND ID just show that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes.LM:
Also, what we find with Archaeopteryx is a full wing and fully developed feathers. What we also find is about 15 characteristics only found in reptiles and not found in any extant bird. This makes it a transitional fossil.John Paul:
Really? Gould called it a mosaic. Just because it appears to have characteristics of birds & reptiles could be a testimony against how we try to define organisms. The fact that all of its features are fully formed makes it a poor candidate for a transitional. Besides it didn't transition to anything and embryology questions it being a bird at all.Using computer simulations as evidence for real-world biology is a stretch. especially simulations that have been refuted, as has Tom's EV.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
Flagellum: mutations within the type III secretory system.
John Paul:
Too bad phylogenetic analysis shows IF ANYTHING the type III evolved from the flagellum. Also only what 10 proteins are homologuous? That nleaves quite a bit unaccounted for.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LM:
So it's not an IC system.John Paul:
How did you come to that conclusion?LM:
If you take away everything but 10 parts, it has a new function.John Paul:
Actually those 10 parts have to be modified also. Do you even know what IC is? IC does NOT say that the parts of the IC system have no function by themselves or groups of parts can't function, all IC says is THAT in that system the removal of one or more parts causes THAT system to stop functioning.LM
The rest of the proteins are not specific to the flagellum alone. Actin, for example, is also used in other places in the cell. Sorry, but the flagellum is hardly a mystery to evolutionary scientists.John Paul:
I will believe that when I read about the evolution of the flagellum in a peer-reviewed journal. Lip service, as above, is all evolutionists can muster at this point in time.LM;
Photosensitive proteins are not that uncommon.John Paul:
How they originated is the question.LM:
All you need is for a specific dermal cell to express a mutated protein that happens to have photosensitive characteristics. Even single celled organisms have photosensitive spots. The fact that we see every step of the evolutionary pathway in extant organisms adds considerable credence to the theory of evolution and the eye.John Paul:
You, as with Dawkins before you, are guilty of generalizations and gross anatomy. IOW you have NO idea if the eye could evolve. You have NO evidence that mutations culled by selection could do this.Bllod clotting:
http://www.discovery.org/...
{Shortened display form or URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}LM:
1. Does an Intelligent Designer affect morphology? (yes/no)John Paul:
The designer would design the DNA and all the instructions needed. So in that sense the designer could affect morphology. However the designer does NOT design a human knee and then that part gets translated to the DNA's instructional code.LM:
2. If yes, how does the intelligent designer affect morphology? What are the mechanisms?John Paul:
Design is the mechanism. The designer affects (rather could affect) morphology by designing in the instructions to do so.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-10-2004 02:20 AM

John Paul,Welcome back. Instead of dedicating so much of your wonderful posts feigning ignorance at the IDC tag, perhaps you should define your position and methodology for us. You continue to use the word 'naturalism' in the most pejorative sense imaginable. However, when I ask directly for evidence of a non-natural mechanism to explain natural phenomena, you merely quote Behe talking vaguely about the design inference. Why should interconnectedness, or irreducible complexity, or any other attribute of a living organism, point to a non-natural origin? We are still awaiting evidence that living organisms, or biological structures thereof, have ever been designed by intelligent agents. Since Stonehenge isn't a reproducing organism, we infer that it was built by intelligent agents. It's not so clear when it comes to living organisms, who reproduce themselves through understood mechanisms of heredity.Since you deny the existence of any persuasive evidence among the vast amount of existing evolutionary literature, I daresay you're wasting your time telling me to 'get off of your lazy butt' to read anti-Darwinian tracts. Your only response when asked for a testable scientific hypothesis is to demand that I seek out creationist books and websites. I appreciate your recommendation, now could we discuss science?If you don't feel like defining your terms, then please don't be surprised when I define them for you. You have said that there are 'original designs' from which all modern organisms descend. Please give us your evidence for this assertion. You have said that science's demand that all mechanisms be naturalistic constitutes bias. Please show us one natural phenomenon that we understand using the non-natural mechanism you propose.regards,
Esteban Hambre

MrH:
Instead of dedicating so much of your wonderful posts feigning ignorance at the IDC tag,John Paul:
The reality is that I am NOT feigning anything. The reality is IDC exists only in the minds of the ignorant (willful or otherwise) and malicious detractors who can't help themselves. Which are you?MrH- I have read the evolutionary literature. I even have several college courses in biological sciences as well as over a year of field work. There isn't anything in it that shows that mutations culled by selection can do what you want us to think it did.You, on the other hand, know little if anything about ID or Creation.Non-natural mechanisms- anything man-made would be non-natural. Anything that nature couldn't do by itself including a beaver dam, would be non-natural. Investigative teams and scientists already have processes in place that allow us to detect design- inteligent, ie no-natural, design. Go figure...

John Paul alleges:

quote:

---

Anything that nature couldn't do by itself including a beaver dam, would be non-natural.

---

I'm impressed that you are so certain of precisely what Nature is able and unable to accomplish. I'm astonished that Nature is able to produce a baby from a fertilized egg without the direct intervention of an Intelligent Agent. Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly why Nature is unable to produce anything having the attribute of IC, when such things seem abundant in the biosphere. Hint: Behe doesn't mention why either.added by edit:
I submit that intelligent agents are unable to create ex nihilo cells that reproduce themselves, so your mechanism is not a possible explanation for the phenomenon of biological life. Can you present any evidence that refutes my statement?regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-09-2004 04:03 PM

I'd like to encourage debaters to remain focused on the technical issues.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

Using computer simulations as evidence for real-world biology is a stretch. especially simulations that have been refuted, as has Tom's EV.

---

Actually, the bigger stretch is inferring design in biological systems by referring to non-reproducing, man made designs. The algorithm of random change and selection causes an increase in information and causes design. It doesn't matter if this algorithm is applied to digits on a screen or applied to genetic structures. What matters is the selection process which filters the changes, much like a seive can separate out soil particles into different sizes. Information is not solely a product of intelligence, as is shown by the un-intelligent production of information through Schneider's computer model.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anything that nature couldn't do by itself including a beaver dam, would be non-natural.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
I'm impressed that you are so certain of precisely what Nature is able and unable to accomplish.John Paul:
I am so certain because of observation. IOW not once has nature been observed building a dam for a purpose. Nowhere has nature ever been observed creating specified complexity.MrH:
I'm astonished that Nature is able to produce a baby from a fertilized egg without the direct intervention of an Intelligent Agent.John Paul:
LoL!!! Nature didn't produce the baby, the baby is the result of the itelligent design of living things. The ToE can't even explain sexual reproduction!MrH:
Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly why Nature is unable to produce anything having the attribute of IC, when such things seem abundant in the biosphere. Hint: Behe doesn't mention why either.John Paul:
Why do I have to explain what nature can't do? It is up to you to show what nature can do. Why is it in all the years we have observed nature we have NEVER observed nature create specified complexity?MrH:
I submit that intelligent agents are unable to create ex nihilo cells that reproduce themselves, so your mechanism is not a possible explanation for the phenomenon of biological life.John Paul:
No one says the cells were created ex-nihilo. Maybe you can create another strawman to knockdown.

Wait... what? JP, do you need to be told where babies come from?