|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 3/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Study of Intelligent Design Debate | |||||||||||||||||||
The Barbarian Member (Idle past 6265 days) Posts: 31 From: Dallas, TX US Joined: |
John Paul has been asked before if there is even one case where ID can identify "design" in nature, if the answer hasn't been previously known or assumed. So far, he's been unable to find one.
Can anyone do this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2790 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: Indeed. There are approximately 600 interpretive organizations (denominations) of Christianity with more than a hundred English language translations of the Bible from which to choose. Some denominations have produced Bible "translations" of their own, tailored to their specific doctrinal needs. These so-called "new" translations change words and meanings; and squeeze out small, washed, brains which come here to beat the bleaching bones of that proverbial dead horse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
SAGREB Inactive Member |
Interesting discussion you had a while ago. Im a creationist.
A good definition of microevolution and impossible macroevolution would be this: Every individuals in a created kind have the same protein transduction pathways, one spieces might have LOST a protein transduction pathway or the protein transduction pathways might be linked to each other by mutations. (Testosterone give rise to a mane in lions but not to other cats.) That is for example protein chains producing cells that have even more different protein system. There might be arised dubble genes or one or a few extra proteins acting together with these ordinary vitally important systems. An extra protein change the regulation. That protein might cause a shortnosed dog like a pekingese, like a cat. But the cats have a more flexible spine. This might be due - (I dont know. But I would like to know) - to many different proteins acting together. If the cats have this protein system and the dogs doesnt, it shows 2 different kinds. I discuss this more at the evolution-forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5616 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
If we could pinpoint an event where the likelyhood of many of the different kinds of organisms coming to be would dramatically increase from close to zero to close to 100 percent then that would be a design or creation event IMO.
But then I guess most everything would look designed to some degree by such a theory. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I don't like the use of chance in the above, and the suddenemergence of man kinds would just be am emergence event. Now if ALL kinds appeared at the same time, we might have asuggestion of arrival that would indicate creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3802 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
This is a good link for those deists out there. If you want to see a good argument against ID then read this
Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer Read the whole post if you wish but I'd like to point out this specifically: This is in reference to Behe's problem with cell functions. "The problem with this statement is that it is contradicted by the available literature on comparative studies in microbiology and molecular biology, which Behe conveniently ignores (Miller 1996). For example, geneticists are continuously showing that biochemical pathways are partly redundant. Redundancy is a common feature of living organisms where different genes are involved in the same or in partially overlapping functions. While this may seem a waste, mathematical models show that evolution by natural selection has to produce molecular redundancy because when a new function is necessary it cannot be carried out by a gene that is already doing something else, without compromising the original function..." Great website to check out. There are quite a few refutations of ID and IC in the site. "Evolution is a fact: It is the mechanism that is debatable."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3802 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
RC: So...does 1 + 1 = 2?
It depends on the math you are using. There is a branch of mathematics where 1 + 1 does not equal 2. I apologize that I don't remember the branch of mathematics where this is true and I can't find the reference for this(its late im tired ). Any mathmaticians out there who know? [This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-08-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7691 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear DBlevins,
DB to Sonnike:Is it me or is the argument from design answer getting old? PB: It is you. Concerning your mail: DB:This is a good link for those deists out there. If you want to see a good argument against ID then read this Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer Read the whole post if you wish but I'd like to point out this specifically: DB: This is in reference to Behe's problem with cell functions. PB: Didn't know Behe had a problem with his cell functions. DB: "The problem with this statement is that it is contradicted by the available literature on comparative studies in microbiology and molecular biology, which Behe conveniently ignores (Miller 1996). For example, geneticists are continuously showing that biochemical pathways are partly redundant. Redundancy is a common feature of living organisms where different genes are involved in the same or in partially overlapping functions. While this may seem a waste, mathematical models... PB: math is like evolutionism: a tautology. [And it is no science, at least, according to the evo's on this board. It is an art, so they say.] DB (cont): ...show that evolution by natural selection has to produce molecular redundancy because when a new function is necessary it cannot be carried out by a gene that is already doing something else, without compromising the original function..." Great website to check out. There are quite a few refutations of ID and IC in the site. PB: Great website full of outdated information, you mean. The most compelling evidence for design ARE genetic (molecular) redundancies (GR). Since you are new here: GR are not associated with gene duplications and are not mutating with an increased rate compared to essential genes. Thus, evolutionary predictions are clearly not true, and GR stand as clearcut evidence for design. If you wanna know more about this topic, I recommend to read my threads and all scientific references therein. D: "Evolution is a fact: It is the mechanism that is debatable." PB:"Genetic variation is a fact: the mechanisms that perform this are present in the genome. Evolution from microbe to man is a fairytale". The problem with evolutionists is that they only have one term for several unequal phenomena: evolution. Change of a nucleotide: evolution. Deletion of DNA region: evolution. Duplication of a region: evolution. Selection against mutation carriers: evolution. Selection of antibiotic resistant micro-organism during permanent constraint: evolution. Changing gene frequencies in populations: evolution. And then they start to extrapolate. If this than also microbe to man: evolution. The fossil record: evolution. If evolutionism was a science they would have discriminated between the two mechanisms. They don't since it is convenient to point at the one mechanism as proof for the other. However, microbe to man evolution is a never observed inference --not even a good one-- from the fossil record, it is not backed up by what we now know about genomes, since all the mechanisms that induce variation are already pre-existent in the genome. And who are the preformationists you talked about in another thread. All characteristics preexisting in the genome, I assume. But who wrote on the topic? Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-08-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No, mutations all. quote: No this is selection. quote: OK ... now that's a modern definition of evolution. I stillprefer 'trait frequency', but I'm in a minority I think quote: The problem with extrapolation being ...? quote: The fossil record isn't evolution ... it is as evolutionwould expect to find it. ie. it supports the evolutionary theory. Microbe to man is a reasonable extrapolation given thedevelopmental trends seen in fossil data. quote: What like radiation, chemical mutagens, viral agents, and thatsort of thing? You say that microbe->man evo. has never been seen ... butthen tell us what was in the first genome(s). You have much less evidence for your case than evo. does for its. quote: I still do not understand why this is of relevence tothe design argument. There are segments of DNA within genomes which, if removeddo not effect the viability of the organism. This has been shown. RNA interference can even produce such an effect either temporarily (as in experiments with mice with glowy liver cells) or permanently (as with attempts to make violets more violet by genetic engineering). If we can accept that nucleotide bases can be added to DNAsequences by copy errors even without gene duplication, then what more do we need? If evolution is to occur at all there must be some functionwhich is not required for life, but that may provide an advantage to life in some situations ... ooh we do ... we have GR's!!! quote: Why should they? Selective pressure? What about selection of another gene on the same chromosome?I keep asking that and you keep ignoring it. quote: Which evolutionary predictions? quote: They are required for evolution to work, and thus say nothingabout the design Vs. development argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7691 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear peter,
As recently demonstrated GR are rather for backup than for a evolution. (Gu et al, Nature, 2 January 2003). It once more demonstrates evolutionism to be wrong. There is no evolution from microbe to man, there is GUToB. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
The objection to Gr as design evidence still stands.
If you have two genes which do they same job, one canget altered without causing a dead critter. That is a requirement for evolution, surely?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
emster Inactive Member |
Hi, I'm a twelve year old eigth grader looking for info for a project. My chosen subject is the okapi. I was wondering if you guys could help me out. I would like to know how the okapi originated, is a cross between a zebra and giraffe? Or is it the result of some wacky experiment?? Or cross-breeding?? Any info would be appreciated!!
THANKS
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Did you even try Google? It's merely one of what they call "search engines", which enable you to find information on the web.
Seriously, I imagine a lot of people here are a lot like me; "armchair" biology fans. You may wish to speak to a comparative zoologist with a specialization in ungulates. Also okapi aren't particularly on-topic for this thread. (From what I've seen of okapi it seems like they could be some kind of giraffe predecessor, or at least a more direct decendant of their common ancestor. Of course, I have no evidence beyond visual similarity to make such an assertation. Merely a suggestion to a line of research inquiry.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
This thread seems to have run its course. As always, it can be reopened by request in the Suggestions forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024