EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack

Somehow that analogy between comparing unfortunate genetic accidents (extra sets of body parts) and building fundamentally new irreducibly complex systems seems to be quite a stretch. (Remember, if the TTSS devolved from the flagellum, then I am back to square one.) You would have to persuade me much more than simply using that analogy. Not that I am asking you to do so because this would be a tall order requiring some detailed genetic references. You haven't read my ID counter to the evidence. With shellfish, you can have a series of what appears to be changes but there could be problems with this. It doesn't factor any possible ecophenotypic variations that can effect the development of structures of shellfish. Some seashells in one particular ecological habitat could turn out to look a little bit different in another. Actually, I have seen drawings of the fins of tetrapods and Tiktaalik's fin doesn't persuade me. I realize it fits within the evolutionary time sequence.I have read different views of archeopteryx (not in ID books) but in evolution books. "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, says its a reptile and a fancy book (forget the name) on prehistoric birds and precursors of birds says that archeopteryx is a true bird. What is the matter here?I just wanted you to know that my message mood between you and I is still cool. I see that you sincerely believe in your views. You are of course entitled to believe in them.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

You sound like a little kid pointing a finger at me.I bought it here because I was revealing one of my motives behind believing what I believe. Another motive is simply because biology from an ID perspective fascinates me. Another motive is to help myself further develop my rational thinking abilities. When someone counters my debate, I can analyze where I could be wrong. (I want people to come after me. I will now apologize to some of you ahead of time for being a smart ass.) Developing my rational thinking skills will hopefully help me become a better trader.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Actually "Signature in the Cell" also quoted something that says something similar to this. This could be considered to be a separate ID prediction.

I can't blame you for your quick defense of one of the icons of your religion Coyote along with others here. After all, there was a scientist who fell to his knees before a fossil of an archaeopteryx at a museum in England. (National Geographic Jan, 1993) Of all of the things I wrote in my post you guys came to the defense of an icon of evolution.It was in the book "Feather Dinosaurs" where I swore I saw that it stated that it was a true bird. It is a nice book by the way with some very nice color artists impressions of what many feathered dinosaurs may have looked like. To me archaeopteryx looks like it is very capable of flight but what do I know about them?According to your religion, it is a transitional and I can see that. Using your paradigm, I can also see that it also could have been an offshoot of a lineage or a first attempt that went extinct on the way to evolving birds. There are other birds that lived 120 million years ago or so those could be contenders as missing links."Why Evolution is True" says that it is unlikely that archaeopteryx is the missing link.Of course, science is critical of itself and surely scientists would have thought of the same things that I have but ONLY if it uses present natural causes as a way to explain the past. It would never possibly allow an intelligent designer to play a role in common descent. This is where assemblism starts to play a role in my paradigms.Maybe the intelligent designer (not necessarily breaking natural laws) could have used a part of the genetic structure of archaeopteryx and placed it in another organism for the purposes of modification.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I just did some research on it. There is a genus is called Chesapecten. Here is a quote from the net:Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change.I can't find anywhere where it says they evolved outside of their genus. It sounds like microevolution to me. They are all Chesapectens. I'm dropping further reseach on it for now.

That suits me just fine. I just haven't found the logic that says you can call ID a religion when ID hasn't informed us of any religious rituals to perform. Once again, advocates of ID can either be Jewish, Muslim, or Christian or even agnostic and even atheists-(guided transpermia). Therefore, religion could be defined as belief without the necessity of any particular rituals or practices.

I like to get quotes from some of the favorite sites of evolutionists. I guess I hijack those quotes.Taner Edis: Intelligent Design - A blind alley I'm sure you can stretch its boundaries as to encompass the causes and purpose of the universe. I'm not sure all religions have done this. What about those less known religions such as Eckankar? Common sense backs it up. If a highly intelligent alien created the first physical life and directed it to earth, then this is intelligent design. You just need to break free from the beliefs that you want to believe about ID in order to see this. Francis Crick is an atheist who also codiscovered DNA in 1953.See page 248 of "Darwin's Black Box" (quoted below)The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origoin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation. There is a full chapter about this in "Signature in the Cell". Whether you want to accept it or not is your choice. The wedge documents mean nothing to me. No,... evolution is not a religion but people can treat is as such. When someone says, "Evolution hasn't explained everything." that means that it falls within pure science.When someone says something to the effect as the following quote does: "Evolution hasn't explained everthing but, I'm sure that one day the answers will be found and Darwinism will be able to explain it someday." That seems like faith to me. Is that a question? If you want to know what religion I belong too.....I'm a Druid. Hence the name trader and drew.

If I stated it was a prediction of ID, that came out the wrong way. I think I am on the same page as Michael Behe. We both believe in common descent. As I was reading "The Edge of Evolution" this became obvious to me.

I just looked it up myself. I think Johnson's dictionary "a particular system of faith and worship" would work depending on how worship is defined.Worship?Grace Communion InternationalSo worth-ship is the quality of having worth or of being worthy.Worthy is the science of Darwinism... indeed.Between you and Theodoric, I think I have made my case.Bye

Not all IDists believe in what other IDists believe in. Of course arguments occur between Darwinists as well on evolution. So where would you draw lines? Maybe the aliens cultured and made bacteria already equipped with flagellum and cilium. Yes the aliens would have to be non-physical life that wouldn't require IC systems. The second senario was time travel and that was also in Behe's "Darwin's Black Box".

It is more like I am exploring the topics but not searching around madly. Going back to guided transpermia, I would say it is non-theistic ID.I think the problem with any coherent theory of ID is that intelligent designers don't apparently have a total need for rigid mechanistic methods in order to assemble things. I'm sure an intelligent designer can utilize natural laws but there are times where an intelligent designer intervenes or designs but leaves no repedative patterns.I'm not trying to argue with you so much as I am asking for your view on this. I am not a believer in the transpermia theory.

You mean to tell me that out of all the atheists that exist in the world not one of them believes in guided transpermia? It wasn't my main point in the first place. The point that I was really trying to make was Darwinism can be used as a religion. ID does not tell us what kind of religious rituals to perform and of course neither does Darwinism. Darwinism isn't a religion but when faith is added to it to the point when you think it disproves the existence or the need of an intelligent designer, then it is religion.I noticed there have been posts on this forum that essentially say that ID should be disqualified on the basis of religion. If this is so then I could say that everything that Richard Dawkins says in his books shouldn't carry any merit but I don't.There are of course scientists who believe that science and religion are two different hemispheres and I tend to pretty much agree with them. The only problem I see with this is the idea would assume both realities don't overlap.

ID is an origins science. So I think that when people are thinking from the paradigm of Darwinism, they are thinking from the paradigm of organisms mostly in operation. When you are thinking from operations science you don't easily switch to an origins science. At least I didn't do so until a point similar to this was made in "Signature in the Cell".

Although you do have some points in some of your posts, I think we agree to disagree and there is no point in further arguing with our disagreements. I will let you have the last word.

Fair enough, let's start with some information from this forum. Let's look at some Darwinian conjecture from Perdition under another topic.EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments So what does this mean? It means according to Wounded King, there is a good chance that Perdition was wrong based on Darwinian conjecture! It is safe to say that Darwinian conjecture doesn't always work. Has anybody actually observed neutral mutations building a novel functional structure?Let's take this a step further. We all know that DNA builds proteins but, how does DNA build structures based on a hierarchy of proteins? Proteins are assembled to form cells and cells are assembled to form tissues and tissues are assembled to form organs and all of these are assembled to form overall body plans.Let me answer that. I would say that what was known as "junk DNA" determines this.I can say that Darwinian conjecture is almost trivial unless the conjecture explain whatever biochemical process exceptionally well. Has it even been taken to the point to where it has been used to create a delusion? I would suspect that those who use it as a religion or an antireligion do this although I don't expect anybody to admit it. Some of them may not even be conciously aware they are doing this.If Darwinists couldn't explain the hierachial assembly of body plans then, how could they have even competed with intelligent design or even creationism?Only recently have evolutionary scientists such as Sean Carroll attempted to explain this with the science of Evo Devo. Back in 1997 we saw something that Carroll wrote:Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).This quote was referring to the Cambrian explosion and I found it on talkorigins.org. (Use the search terms "hox Cambrian" in that site.) Was this more Darwinian conjecture? It appears so since we later saw this from Carroll:The surprising message from Evo Devo is that all of the genes for building large, complex animal bodies long predated the appearance of those bodies in the Cambrian Explosion. The genetic potential was in place for at least 50 million years, and probably a fair bit longer, before large, complex forms emerged. (Carroll, 2005)Intelligent design would predict that the tools and the conditions would have been in place before purposeful and planned steps were made. This being the case, hox genes were in place before the Cambrian explosion.The most stunning discovery of Evo Devo [that similar genes shape dissimilar animals]... was entirely unanticipated. (Carroll, 2005)However, this would be a prediction from my hypothesis I call "assemblism". Creationism essentially means using supernatural powers to create something fundamentally new. Assemblism means to build things out of parts without necessarily breaking natural laws. It says that an intelligent designer would use parts from various organisms to build species. It says that common ancestry is quite possible.I suspect you are a scientist Wounded King. I respect your knowledge so I would appreciate where I am wrong on any of my details. Of course, I expect you to come back with more than just details. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.