Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 10 of 1273 (511467)
06-09-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Son
06-09-2009 9:18 PM


So, to you ID is just an idea? Not a theory? If it was a competing theory to evolution, shouldn't it answer the questions evolution does? At least part of them?
Here's the problem.
ID is a political movement with a political goal. They have no interest in answering questions, no interest in collecting data.
The ENTIRE goal is simply to confuse the public sufficiently to allow Christian Fundamentalism to hijack education.
Check out the wedge strategy to see their aims

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Son, posted 06-09-2009 9:18 PM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Son, posted 06-10-2009 12:11 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 12 of 1273 (511480)
06-10-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Son
06-10-2009 12:11 AM


What mention that you are hoping will happen in your above quote is not going to happen.
Edited by Nuggin, : Obfuscating to reduce brievity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Son, posted 06-10-2009 12:11 AM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-10-2009 12:39 AM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 192 of 1273 (539956)
12-21-2009 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:50 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I realized after I read this, by utilizing this method to explain the past, it is based on the "assumption" that nothing extraordinary or supernatural played a part in the history of how life was formed and developed.
So, by your standard, all claims for cause and effect are equally valid/invalid.
If I push a ball it moves forward because I applied force to it. -or- If I push a ball it moves forward because invisible unicorn riding trolls tether magical ropes and drag it.
In the first case, I am ASSUMING that observable testable rational forces are sufficient to explain what's happening.
In the 2nd case, I am ASSUMING that invisible non-existent forces are behind the actions.
Since in both cases I'm assuming something, we can not possibly design any sort of machinery based on either scenario - since any such machine would be inherently fatally flawed by these assumptions.
That's REALLY what you want to argue here? Are you sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:50 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by traderdrew, posted 12-21-2009 8:58 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 221 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:57 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 195 of 1273 (539979)
12-21-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by traderdrew
12-21-2009 8:58 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
I think the evidence should stand on its own and the motivations behind the statements should not disqualify them. I think when someone questions the integrity or motives of an individual, I suspect a red herring.
It's fine to think that, however you are wrong.
In the case of ID, the proponents have made their motivations clear by writing the Wedge Document.
You can not call foul on people pointing out that a claimant has ADMITTED that they aren't interested in the facts, but rather are politically motivated to replace real science with Christian Fundamentalism through specific calculated actions.
It is as though the naturalistic evolutionists have nothing else to say but to attack the person and not the substance of the debate. If someone is going to attempt to silence a debate this way then, this isn't science because I think science should advance by examination and debate.
I'm personally offended by this statement. Not because it's wrong, but because it presumes that anyone on your side of the debate has EVER offered anything of substance.
For YEARS now we've REPEATEDLY asked for data, for descriptions of the mechanisms, for definitions, for the "scientific theory" of ID.
Your founders have admitted under oath that they haven't done any experimentation to back up their claims nor do they ever intend to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by traderdrew, posted 12-21-2009 8:58 AM traderdrew has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 200 of 1273 (539994)
12-21-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Okay than, explain how do those patterns show evolution. And while you're at it, define evolution.
Let's start with the definition: Evolution is change in gene frequency across a population over time.
Extremely simple and awful hard for you to claim it doesn't occur, since it's OBSERVABLE.
As to how (vestigial genes) show evolution:
The presence of the genes themselves don't demonstrate evolution, they are remnants of evolutionary change. However, the presence of these genes is predicted by evolution, fits the evolutionary model, couldn't possibly have been known to exist prior to the evolutionary model being put forth.
As such they are strong confirmation of evolutionary theory.
More importantly, however, is this: These genes can not be explained in ANY WAY by either Creationism or ID. Neither claim makes any predictions about non-used remnant fragments found in different populations which co-exist in descendant populations.
Like MOST of the evidence we'll discuss, the "Magic" lobby simply can't address it while evolution not only can explain it, but actually predicts it's presence AHEAD of time.
Which of the words "WHAT" "NUMBER" "DEFINES" "A" "POPULATION" "TO" "BE" "CALLED" "SMALL"?
Population size is dependent on a number of factors, some of which would be longevity and reproductive rates. A "small population" of elephants which reproduce slowly would have a different number of members than a small population of rats.
The point of discussion when referring to "small population" is how frequently individuals are breeding with other individuals with whom they are closely related. Think cousins.
The smaller the population, the more frequently closely related individuals interbreed, the more a particular gene can be expressed.
This is why isolated populations (island evolution) produces rapid and unusual changes while mainland populations tend to change slower.
That will be true once when you told me exactly what is wrong with this here article.
The article claims an intelligent causation but offers no explanation is to who/what this "intelligence" is and by what method it could "cause" the things it claims were caused.
Attributing an alleged pattern to an imaginary source using imaginary powers to generate it is childish at best.
Until Dembski can present a testable MECHANISM through which this alleged design occurred, there's really no discussion to be had.
Anyone can pretend that anything could be caused by some unknown, unknowable, undescribed and unmeasurable force.
When I turn the key to my car, an undetectable invisible faerie who lives in my spark plug fires off a magical lightning bolt which ignites the fuel. Prove me wrong. You can't. It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove me wrong because I stated that the magical being is undetectable. My claim is just as valid as Demskis and it didn't take me a whole bunch of $20 words to dress it up.
That how do you explain the fact that I have no problem understanding anyone else?
It is often those who understand the least that claim they fully understand. The fact that you think you understand what other people are discussing on the forum is not evidence that you actually understand. It could simply indicate that you know so little that you aren't even aware of the factors you don't understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 10:12 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 2:46 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 201 of 1273 (539995)
12-21-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 10:43 AM


Re: l
No, it means small populations wii die out sooner than large populations. Explain to me why exactly would large populations not die from genetic entropy. WHY?
I can't believe that I have to state something THIS obvious but...
Large populations NEVER die out. _ONLY_ small populations can go extinct.
I'll demonstrate:
If you have a population of widgets that's only 10 in number and 90% of them die off, you are left with only 1. No reproduction is possible and the species dies out.
If you have a population of 1,000 widgets and 90% of them die off, you are left with 100 widgets. If 90% of them die off, you're left with 10 widgets. Now you no longer have a large population. You instead have a small population.
In ALL cases of extinction, there is a "last" individual to die. That "last" individual represents a SMALL population.
As for genetic entropy, each individual member of a population is subject to natural selection which is a STRONG force fighting against harmful entropy. As a result, there is a constant weeding out of any negative genetic changes. Thus a large population could split into two different successful populations, but that large population will never splinter into a million different non-breeding individuals as a result of genetic drift. That's simply not reality.
As for your picture, you've failed on a number of levels. First, you are not introducing any genetics from spouses. Second, you are assuming that ALL mutations positive and negative get passed on in each generation. Third you are assuming that there is an insanely high rate of both positive and negative mutation with absolutely no consideration no neutral mutations. Fourth, you are assuming that there is no gene duplication. And all of that's just off the top of my head.
So, in your make believe, not based on reality, picture you've created, your non-realistic population dynamics lead to extinction of a non-sexually reproducing population. Sounds like you and Demski are made for each other.
When you decide to deal with the real world, we can talk science. In imagination land, you can design any scenario you want and pretend that the Jew Wizard makes it work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 10:43 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 3:00 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 209 of 1273 (540014)
12-21-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 2:46 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Great. You do know that this change does not imply or produces common descent of all life as a necessity?
Correct. "Common descent" is not a conclusion which arises from the definition of evolution alone. It arises instead from the evidence.
Just like the Earth traveling around the Sun does not arise from the definition of gravity alone.
Great. You do know that this change does not imply or produces common descent of all life as a necessity?
The problem here is your failure to understand the mechanisms involved.
Chickens have a gene which codes for teeth. Chickens also have a gene which codes for a beak. The teeth gene activates first, then gets overwritten by the beak gene.
If a chicken did not have the teeth gene, it would still have a beak. The beak gene arose later.
However, the teeth gene is still present.
The presence of a teeth gene is completely unexplainable using ID/Creationism. There is NO reason for its presence.
The same is true for a chicken's long tail which grows, then shrinks, during embryotic development.
Evolution explains these factors.
Evolution does not predict "rain and/or no rain".
Evolution would have a HELL of a time explaining why a chicken embryo developed an exoskeleton and then lost it. Or why a chicken would share absolutely no DNA with any other bird. The first case would imply a relationship evolution does not predict between chickens and crabs, the second would imply a lack of relationship which evolution does predict between all birds.
I suspect that you know this and are being deliberately dense as though making simple mistakes on your part would somehow convince me or others to throw out established science and embrace witchcraft. I think that you should reassess that strategy as it is extremely unlikely to work.
Genetic entropy is what causes defective genes that lose their function. Since biological functions are only transmited by matter, and imperfectly at that, and do not arise by it, ID predicts that biological functions will deteriorate.
And nylonese alone disproves that claim. As does the E. Coli/Citrate experiments. As does the fossil record. Etc etc etc
In science, a single failed prediction is reason to reassess your claim. In the case of ID/Creationism, every single prediction to date has been demonstrated to be wrong.
How many times are you willing to be wrong before you rethink your position?
Basicly you agree with me that the words "small" and "large" are relative when applied to population sizes?
I will go a step further and state that the words "small" and "large" are _ALWAYS_ relative.
Exactly. Because the article claims that it can detect design without knowing all those things you mentioned.
And that's ridiculous on its face.
I'm going to change a couple words and present the same sentence.
"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because gravity and weather patterns shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."
"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because the designer shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."
"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because Harry Potter and wizard magic shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."
Now, I believe #1 is correct. You believe #2 is correct. You, however, don't believe that #3 is correct. But #2 and #3 are the _EXACT SAME SENTENCE_.
If you can't name the force nor give a mechanism through which the force has acted, nor give examples of the result of the force, nor make predictions about future actions from the force, nor adequately explain the existing evidence allegedly left behind by the force then YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
Sorry, ID doesn't work liek that. It's about the detection of design, not about it's mechanisms of implementation. A totally different field of investigation should do this job. Just liek evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution is not supposed to explain that.
Obviously this is another example of you being deliberately dense because you don't want to concede the point.
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life because life must exist and be able to reproduce in order for evolution to occur.
ID doesn't explain the mechanism of ID because it's make believe.
Can you not tell the difference?
If IDers don't want to explain the origin of life, I won't force them. However, they are specifically claiming that functions are occurring yet they can't describe those functions. That's a big fail.
Further, you claim that IDers only job is to detect design, however they don't have a testable method by which a person can determine if a new thing is either designed or not.
If I presented you with a perfect sphere, you could not tell me if it was magically designed by the Jew Wizard, cosmically designed by the Silver Surfer, or simply a piece of lava the dripped into water.
True. Which is why the article I linked to, does not do that. It attributes observable patterns to a well known cause called intelligence.
It treats "intelligence" as a noun. Intelligence is not a noun, it is an adjective.
If you treat it as a noun are you saying that it is a being.
This being can not be seen, nor detected, nor described, etc etc etc. Therefore it is make believe.
Actually random mutations, naturala selection and common descent could have been the mechanism that design of life got implemented by.
Now you are claiming that the designer (let's just call him the Jew Wizard since we all know that's what Demski is saying) "designed" using evolution.
So rather than allowing the observable, measurable and detectable solution which does NOT requiring adding in a layer of magic, you are suggesting that we arbitrarily add in the Jew Wizard just to make the people at the ID institute feel better?
Why not have Intelligent Gravity? Gravity is the force two masses have on one another at a distance as overseen by a Jewish Wizard.
Why not have Intelligent Fire? Fire is the release of energy as carbon molecules are combined with oxygen when stared at by a Jewish Wizard.
How are these claims BETTER science by adding in Jewish Wizard Magic to the equation?
First of all, you named your source. You said it was a fairy. Obviously you have no evidence for that. ID does not name the designer, becasue it has no evidence for it's identity.
Dembski HAS stated FOR THE RECORD that the Designer is the CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST GOD. (aka Jew Wizard)
YOU are linking Dembski's paper, therefore YOU are backing his claim. You can't have it both ways.
Second, ID does not claim teh effects are undetectale. The marks of design are very detectable. They are called specified complexity.
But they can not quantify nor define this complexity. Nor can they detect the CAUSE of this complexity.
AND, before you start "Jew Wizard" is not the CAUSE of complexity. "Jew Wizard" is the SOURCE of the Cause. The cause is "Magic Jew Beams".
Until you can measure the Magic Jew Beams in action, you don't have a cause.
That is why we have a method to eliminate design called the Explanatory Filter. First step is to show that a pattern can be attributed to a regularity, which means a natural law. If such a pattern arises by a natural law, than the design hypothesis is falsified. If it is shown that a pattern does not arise by natural law than we go to step 2. Next step is to show that we can account for a pattern by chance. If we can show that, than again, the design hypothesis is falsified. If it can not be shown, than we infer design, as the last resort.
Except that that is NOT what you do. Behe was forced to admit ON THE STAND that all of his claimed IR features were NOT IR. If inferring design is a LAST resort and you've incorrectly inferred design MULTIPLE times, then you are getting to your LAST resort entirely too early.
You need to do more steps. For example. AN EXPERIMENT.
Again, let me remind you that NO ONE on your side of the debate has ever even attempted to do an experiment to test your claims. Nor do they intend to.
Edited by Nuggin, : fixing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 2:46 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by cavediver, posted 12-21-2009 4:01 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 212 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 4:51 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 211 of 1273 (540019)
12-21-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 3:00 PM


Re: l
What is a "small" and "large" population? Didn't you basicly say in your previous post that it's a relative term?
Yes, they are relative. The terms refer to size. A "small" size is relatively _smaller_ than a large size.
Why is 1000 a "large" population and 10 a "small" population?
Because 10 is less than 1000. Are you seriously having this much of a problem with this.
The numbering system we use is base 10. It goes from 0-9, then repeats with an additional digit added to the front. That new column of digits likewise goes from 0-9, increasing each time the column to the right cycles completely. This process is repeated infinitely forward.
So, 1000 takes up four columns of digits, while 10 only takes up two. Therefore 1000 represents a greater numeric value than 10.
I suggest that before we continue a discussion of biology (which is a fairly complicated science) you may want to familiarize yourself with 1st grade counting to prevent further confusion.
This is an assumption. Do you have any evidence that natural selection is strong enough to remove all effects of genetic entropy?
An animal which dies before it reproduces does not pass its genetic material onto the next generation. So, unless the Jew Wizard also has a magic beam to correct that problem, we can assume that that individuals "genetic entropy" is not being passed along.
This would be correct if it was not wrong. Rats have aworking GULO gene that let's them synthesize Vitamin C. Humans, Chimps and Guinea pigs do not. Their GULO gene is defective. Obviously evolution did not weed out that mutation. Therefore, your assertation that natural seelction weeds out ANY negative genetic changes if flawed.
How is their working GULO gene which allows them to synthesize vitamin C a negative genetic change?
Do I need to go into a detailed explanation of the words "negative" and "positive"?
If the deleterious mutations keep accumulationg, than obviously it will.
And if donkeys farted gold dust we'd all be millionaires. However, since they don't we aren't. And since deleterious mutations don't accumulate causing each individual in a population to spontaneously be unable to reproduce with any other, I suggest you drop this line of theoretical thinking.
It would be to complex and would fit the image size. But it doesn't help you anyway. I assumed that the offsprng inherits both parent's genetic material. The inherit both deleterious and beneficial mutations, and the count of both increases.
And that's a failure on your part.
Let's take an imaginary organism with only 4 genes called a 1234.
If a 1234 produces an offspring with 1 positive "a" mutation and 2 negative "b" mutations the offspring is:
1b2a34b.
Now that offspring meets up with another equally mutated 1234 named: 1b23b4a.
They mate and produce a number of offspring, that offspring is NOT going to have multiples of the mutations. It's going to have one or the other from each gene.
So, in this scenario is WILL have a 1b since both parents have it, but it could just as likely have a normal 2 or 2a. It could either have 4b or 4a.
Your chart does NOT account for this.
No, I'm not ASSUMING it, I KNOW it. Parents pass 100% of their genetic material to their offspring.
And again we see that what you "KNOW" is actually incorrect. You do not have 100% of your mother's DNA and 100% of your father's DNA. You have a mix which adds up to 100% (assuming you have no unique mutations yourself).
Actually there are no 100% neutral mutations. The so called slightly deleterious, or almost neutral mutations are the ones that are effectively neutral and can't be weeded out by natural selection. It's becasue their effect is to weak. Therefore, they are the ones that accumulate the most and are causing most of genetic entropy.
DNA duplication does not help you in any way, shape, or form. What do you intend to gain by duplicating genes?
Gene duplication neither adds new function nor deletes old function. It does, however, present a platform upon which later positive mutations can occur which provide new function without detracting from existing function.
Which are possibly the worst argument I heard in my entire life. Your arguments consist of telling me that I did nt draw enough details, and telligen me that I didn't include totally worthless mechanisms that which will either only slow down genetic entropy or won't do anything at all.
So, the "worst argument" you've ever heard in your life was pointing out that you failed to accurately represent the model you were claiming to offer as evidence?
That's odd. The "worst argument" I've ever heard was when someone claimed that a Jew Wizard magic beamed undetectable design into populations using Jew rays.
Wanna guess where I heard it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 3:00 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 5:11 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 214 of 1273 (540030)
12-21-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 4:51 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
So, can you show me some evidence for common descent now?
I will happily go into great detail about ERVs in a different thread. It would unfortunately take up a lot of space and be deemed off topic here.
If you want info, I suggest you search for existing ERVs threads or start a new one and I'll join you over there.
The beak gene arose later? How do you know that? How do you know the gene was not always there?
Because proto-avians in the fossil record have teeth, not beaks. Please don't ask me to explain chronological time to you. If you don't understand "before" and "after", I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you.
Oh it's very explainable. It was designed that way.
Can you think of a SINGLE example which could NOT be explained by "it was designed that way"?
Can "It was designed that way" ever be applied as a predictive model? Or is it ONLY usable to explain evidence after the fact? Do you have a predictive example we can test?
This is what is known as natural genetic engineering. You see, living organisms have build in mechanisms like transposons that will be turend on on certain ques and will modify the genes to fit it's environment.
And they also have pixie levers which the minions of the Jew Wizard can twist when they need to activate the Magic Jew Beam receptors.
You can invent as many magical functions as you want to explain natural things. However, until you can start DEMONSTRATING their existence, they are nothing more than make believe.
It predicts rain and no rain. Therefore, it's useless.
And "the Jew Wizard designed it that way" is useful how?
No, it wouldn't because evolution predicts everything and also nothing. And that's called convergent evolution. Animals can lose and gain traits. Therefore, chickens could gain and lose an exoskeleton.
No, that's not how evolution works. Chickens could not spontaneously gain an exoskeleton. If that were to occur that would be unexplainable using the evolutionary model.
Likewise, if a donkey suddenly sprouted fully formed wings, it would be unexplainable using our model.
Our model is falsifiable.
"Jew Magic" after the fact is NOT falsifiable because it is make believe and make believe can encompass anything.
As you can clearly see here, this particular trait does not evolve by random mutations and natural selection.
Re-read your quote. You are drawing a conclusion from a sentence which contains the word "suggests".
Please explan how does fossile record give you any evidence agains ID? Or for evolution?
Again, if you don't understand the concept of a linear timeline, there is very little I can explain to you. This is sort of a fundamental part of your existence. Denying it really makes this conversation impossible since you can't sort out the sequence of questions and answers.
I can accept his math without accepting his theology.
You are claiming that Dembski is not stating who the "intelligence" is. That's a lie. Either you are ignorant and therefore being honestly dishonest, or you are being intentionally dishonest.
Since I've pointed out that he's admitted that it's the Jew Wizard that's doing the designing, you can no longer honestly claim to not know that.
That is an experiment. Using the Explanatory filter is an experiment.
Clearly it isn't, since your team has failed to apply it to thing which have been demonstrated to be evolved and not designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 4:51 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-22-2009 8:58 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 215 of 1273 (540031)
12-21-2009 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 5:11 PM


Re: l
The DEFECTIVE GULO genes are the ones that are negative. Yet natural selection did not remove them. Why?
Because they aren't negative if they aren't having a negative effect. There are tree rats in my back yard. They may or may not have a working GULO gene. However, since every single house on my block has lemon trees in the yard, whether or not this gene exists in these rats is moot.
The only difference is that they DO accumulate. I already gave links to two articles that show that!
Your claim is that the mutation rate is high enough that all individuals will spontaneously be unable to reproduce with one another. You've provide NO evidence to support this claim.
Wait it's a failure on my part that I didn't draw 10.000.000 generations?
No, because you failed to include genetic material from both parents.
Wrong. I never said it will have multiple mutations. It will only inherit those beneficial and deleterious mutations that it's parents had. BUT!!! He will also gain more mutations of his own, this increasing the cound of both deleterious and beneficial mutations. Which means they do accumulate.
Okay, let's simplify:
You are claiming that in a made up world of your made up animals reproducing in a made up way using made up mutation rates and a made up effect of natural selection, your population will do something different than what happens in the real world under real conditions.
You're right. Your make believe world is different than our real world. Congrats.
First of all, (gene duplication) is an assumption. This has never been observed.
Now I know you are deliberately being dishonest.
Is that because you think that the Jew Wizard rewards lying more than truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 5:11 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 222 of 1273 (540076)
12-22-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 4:51 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Let me show you how painfully illogical this argument is by turning it against you...
If you can't show how life originated by evolution, than evolution is a useless theory and should be discarded!
See?
I can't believe I'm going to have to go over this again.
Evolution makes a claim about how speciation occurs and offers mechanics through which this happens.
It does not need to explain the origins of life for two reasons. First, it doesn't claim to try and explain the origins of life. Second, it works off the assumption that life exists.
A person describing an internal combustion motor does not need to prove that fire exists. They start with the assumption that fire exists and proceed to describe the mechanisms which utilize fire to power their motor.
ID is offered as a cancellation/replacement of evolution. Therefore, it is being offered as an ALTERNATIVE explanation for how speciation occurs. Therefore it _MUST_ offer mechanisms which are _BETTER_ at explaining the observable testable data than those seen in evolution.
So far, ID supporters have NEVER even attempted to do this. Until they do, there's really nothing to discuss. It's simply a bunch of cry babies whining that real scientists aren't taking their LACK OF EVIDENCE seriously.
Come up with a mechanism. Develop a method through which you can test it. Design an experiment and run it. Collect data. Then publish it. THEN we can START to talk about whether or not ID should be considered legitimately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 4:51 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Larni, posted 12-22-2009 7:02 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 238 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-22-2009 9:31 AM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 223 of 1273 (540077)
12-22-2009 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 12:43 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
There have been other times in my life when a certain something has worked for me and scientifically minded people on the net have stated it is bull*&%) but if it works for me then, the hell with what science says.
This is EXACTLY the same quote I hear when debating homeopaths. The problem is bullcrap is bullcrap whether or not it "works for you".
Just because you believe that you were cured of your cold as a result of taking the homeopathic "medicine" doesn't mean that the medicine ACTUALLY did anything.
Your singular biased observations are NOT sufficient evidence to judge the world.
You might have wondered why a designer would conceal the evidence of design. It does seem to me the designer is hidden but science has become sophisticated enough to find some of the evidence hinting of a designer.
So, you believe that there is a super smart Jew Wizard hiding in space who cleverly designed things to look as though they weren't designed but that he's so stupid that YOU have figured out his trick.
That's a HUGE EGO you've got there claiming to be "smarter than God".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:43 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 1:25 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 224 of 1273 (540079)
12-22-2009 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 12:57 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
When questions are not properly answered then, you have controversy such as the debate around intelligent design.
Right. Questions like:
"What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?"
"Who/What is the Creator?"
"Where is the Creator?"
"What mechanism did he use to create?"
"Is this mechanism still in use?"
"Does the Creator still exist or did he vanish, and if so, when? And how can you tell?"
"How many Creators were there?"
"Who Created the Creator and using what mechanisms?"
Care to take a crack at ANY of these? It would really help damp down the "controversy" over Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:57 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 1:39 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 227 of 1273 (540084)
12-22-2009 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 1:25 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
No, I am not implying that the designer wished to remain undetected (assuming the designer wasn't an alien).
You are being disingenuous. You know that the "designer" you are talking about is "God".
You can NOT claim that the designer was an "alien" with an honest face. Firstly because obviously ID is a religious movement founded by religion fanatics pushing a religious agenda.
Secondly, because there is no rational way to explain the existence of an intelligent alien life form if you rule out the possibility of evolution occurring. If WE are intelligently designed, then any alien must ALSO have been intelligently designed. You follow that path back and it is ALWAYS going to lead to "Jew Wizard".
If that is what God wished to do then I think that is cool. Why would a god wish to force someone to believe? This could lead to resentment.
Are you actually this unfamiliar with your own religion. The Bible is FULL of God demanding belief - it's the FIRST COMMANDMENT.
And about that stuff I have personally experienced; man, I have seen some things that have left me speechless.
A zippo lighter leaves a Amazonian tribesman speechless, that doesn't mean it's magic.
Just because YOU don't understand something with your clearly subpar understanding of science doesn't mean it is the work of demons or pixies or whatever else you claim is pulling the strings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 1:25 AM traderdrew has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 228 of 1273 (540085)
12-22-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 1:39 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
There isn't a scientific consensus of the origin of life.
There absolutely IS a consensus on the origin of life. It had one. Life exists. It is on Earth. That is ALL evolution assumes.
If you have EVIDENCE that indicates that life doesn't exist on Earth, I'd like to see it.
Do you? Or are you just trying to deflect? Again?
So who created the creator? This is a short example of infinite regression. Who created you Nuggin? Who created the creator who created Nuggin? Who created that creator as well? You eventually get to a place where you cannot answer so, does that mean you do not exist?
Obviously I exist. Do you have evidence that I don't? I'd like to see it.
I am not the one making the extraordinary claim. You are.
You are claiming (I'm paraphrasing here) that somewhere out there, unseen, is an invisible Jewish Wizard floating on a cloud of Unicorn snot shooting magic Jew beams from his eyes. You are claiming that our existence is IMPOSSIBLE to explain without this invisible Jewish Wizard and his magic Jew beams and therefore he must exist. However, you DON'T seem to have a problem with your not being about to explain HIS existence.
Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 1:39 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:09 PM Nuggin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024