Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

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

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

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

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 210 (1398)
12-31-2001 9:33 AM


schraf:
I will repeat:
We will be able to make predictions about future genetic movements with ID as a guide?
Please provide some examples of these predictions.
John Paul:
I gave you a link. Do I have to read it to you?
Using ID to Understand the Living World
schraf:
Provide evidence.
John Paul:
We infer an IDer exists by the specified complexity that exists in living organisms. That, coupled with irreducible complexity & minimal function, provide ample evidence.
Falsification would be to show that life could be produced via purely natural processes. After that you would have to show irreducible complexity is nothing of the kind and minimal function is irrelevant because every possible point mutation (and combination of) allows that amino acid chain to keep functioning.
schraf:
Once you attribute something to an IDer, then why bother trying to figure out how it works?
John Paul:
Because it is up to us to maintain it. Duh. My car was designed but I am sure glad other people figured out how it works. The same goes for every system man has designed. I debug computer systems for a living- at all levels. I didn't design the systems (although I could and have designed circuit boards) but the point is maintenance is a valuable part of life. Without out we would have to build many more items because things do break down. How expensive is it to buy another a car other than to replace spark plugs?
I apologize schrafinator but it is obvious you are clueless about ID. There are ID websites where you can read about it.
ID Think
Access Research Network
The International Society for Complexity, Information and Design
(read the archives in that one)
Discovery Institute: Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture
I find education is the best way to cure ignorance. If you read the articles of the aforementioned websites and still feel the same way you do about ID, at least then we will have something to discuss.
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.
schraf:
But all of the examples of "evidence" that you use (which isn't positive evidence at all, but gaps in our knowledge) for this IDer consists of unexplained naturalistic phenomena.
John Paul:
Just because you say it isn't positive evidence doesn't mean much to me. Just like you attributing life and its diversity to Mother Nature acting with Father Time and some as yet unknown (unexplained) naturalistic phenomenon- Wow, the Un-Holy Trinity is born- explains absolutely nothing.
Are you just upset because you belong to a small minority of people that believe life has no purpose? And that now scientists are beginning to figure out that were there is form and function coupled with specified complexity there is design. It upsets you that ID will make it into the science classroom doesn't it?
The un-holy trinity. LOL! The ToE is a religious faith afterall.
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-31-2001]

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 9:44 AM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 210 (1460)
01-02-2002 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by derwood
01-02-2002 9:23 AM


SLP:
As for the notion of no 'junk' DNA, this is 'technically' correct - just like creationists are 'technically' correct when they say that the appendix has a function. It is the correlaries drawn form these technically correct claims that cause the problems. Creationists say that because the appendix does something, it cannot be vestigial.
John Paul:
The problem with calling something 'vestigial' is that you have to know (and show) what the original function was. Good luck. Also you have to show that the original function wasn't present in the original humans. That is especially if you want to use the 'vestigial' argument as evidence from common descent from non-human organism(s).
More on 'junk' DNA
Much DNA just "junk" -- or is it?
ID Freindly Evolution
SLP:
So, while 'junk' DNA may serve a (many?) function(s), it is also fairly clear that it has no (known) impact on phenotype.
John Paul:
It is not that clear at all.
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.
ID fits the evidence much better than materialistic naturalism does. So why does it bother you so much?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 9:23 AM derwood has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 210 (1463)
01-02-2002 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RetroCrono
01-02-2002 10:13 AM


Retro Crono:
Lets get back on track of an ID here. The junk DNA topic would be best at its own topic.
John Paul:
Actually 'junk' DNA has ID implications:
When "Junk" DNA Isn't Junk
Here's the last paragraph from that link:
"The roles of non-coding DNA are so numerous and pervasive that evolutionary studies are now looking at these sequences for patterns of "concerted evolution (67)." In summary, the non-coding DNA, contrary to statements by evolutionists, is not useless, but is, in fact, required for genomic functionality, therefore providing evidence of intelligent design. The "junk" DNA is really some rather amazing "junk." " (emph. added)
Retro Crono:
So...does 1 + 1 = 2?
John Paul:
I remember in high school in a class called 'Introductory to Analysis', we had to write a proof for 1 + 1 = 2.
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RetroCrono, posted 01-02-2002 10:13 AM RetroCrono has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 210 (1469)
01-02-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by RetroCrono
01-02-2002 10:40 AM


RetroCrono:
I'm still not exactly clear as to why junk DNA proves or dissaproves an ID.
John Paul:
It doesn't 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. Science isn't about 'proof'. It can, however, be used as evidence for ID and against common descent as depicted by the current ToE.
RetroCrono:
Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.
John Paul:
It is from the specified complexity of DNA, RNA and the living cell that we infer ID. It is the details (read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box') that allows us to see the huge obstacles that face Darwinian step-by-step processes. It is at the molecular level where ID is most apparent.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RetroCrono, posted 01-02-2002 10:40 AM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 1:14 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 210 (1479)
01-02-2002 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by derwood
01-02-2002 1:41 PM


SLP:
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist.
John Paul:
Not at all. If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it. I have no problem with alleged vestigials. Why? Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication.
John Paul:
from Using ID to Infer Molecular Biology:
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."
That does it for me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID fits the evidence much better than materialistic naturalism does. So why does it bother you so much?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer.
John Paul:
Tell you what- until a purely 'naturalistic' answer comes along, it is safe to infer ID.
Materialistic naturalism has been weighed, measured and found wanting.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 1:41 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 2:33 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 2:40 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 210 (1480)
01-02-2002 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by John Paul
01-02-2002 2:18 PM


SLP:
Please expand on this. How, exactly, is junk DNA evidence for ID and against evolution? If you KNOW this, please SHOW this...
John Paul:
from Pseudogenes, are they non-functional?
"The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself additional evidence for their activity. This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly. Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would also expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes should be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations. Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RetroCrono:
Why does such a small detail matter when trying to get an understanding of the unknown? I like to try look at the big picture.
John Paul:
It is from the specified complexity of DNA, RNA and the living cell that we infer ID. It is the details (read Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box') that allows us to see the huge obstacles that face Darwinian step-by-step processes. It is at the molecular level where ID is most apparent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
'Apparent', apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.
John Paul:
I guess that is why guys like Dawkins states "The apparent design is illusory." It is even apparent to an devote atheist. All he can do is say it's 'illusory' as if he knows what he is talking about. Of course he says that because of philosophical differences. Apparently you seldom (if ever) work on designing complex systems. If you had you would see exactly what Behe is talking about in Darwin's Black Box.
SLP:
How is specified complexity determined?
John Paul:
If something is complex, is specified and has a small probability of occurring by chance, then it exhibits specified complexity. DNA & RNA fit that bill. So doesn't life in general.
Tell you what- show that DNA can originate naturally and you will have shown there is no need to infer ID. Do the same with RNA and life and you will have shot down ID.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 01-02-2002 2:18 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 3:00 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 210 (1484)
01-02-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by derwood
01-02-2002 2:40 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
So, as for 'knowing' and 'showing' original functions, the creationist is merely placing unrealistic demands on the scientist.
John Paul:
Not at all. If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Interesting... I shall make good use of this.
John Paul:
Most likely not to support your claims.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with alleged vestigials. Why? Because there is no way of knowing what the original function was and there is no way of telling if that original function existed in the originally Created Kinds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
And the dodge goes full-circle. 'Original function' is just another layer of criteria lobbed on by the goal-post shifting creationists.
From the Harcourt online scientific dictionary:
vestigial [ve stijl] Biology. 1. remaining as a vestige 2. small and imperfectly developed.
I think my example clearly falls under category 2.
John Paul:
Gee whiz huxter, I never see you bring that up when Pat posts that vestigial means it no longer has its original function. But either way you still have to show that the original humans had that 'small & imperfectly developed' whatever. Ya see a human evolving into a human is not beyond the scope of the Creationists' PoV.
SLP:
Of course, as for the created kinds bit:
If someone is making a claim it is up to them to substantiate it.
So please substantiate the reference to 'created kinds' with verifiable documentation.
John Paul:
Again? How many times to you have to be linked to something?
Baraminology
Ligers & Wholphins- what's next?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Of course... Because afterall, 'not needing' something is not the same as being useless. But what did Mike Gene's 'teleologic' actually accomplish here? Did it help him lay out a research strategy? A strategy that then was implemented in a laboratory setting and bore fruit?
No. It helped him do a literature search...
John Paul:
That is not correct. He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position. So there was no need for him to continue- huge difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
He was? Please cut and paste the evidence form that article demonstrating as much, for I could find no such implication.
John Paul:
from Using ID to Infer Molecular Biology:
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out. As it happens, I did a literature search after coming up with this hypothesis and indeed discovered there is some good evidence of proofreading during transcription."
That does it for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
"What if I did this? "
That does it for me.
Your quote above does not in any way, shape or form support your claim above:
"He was going to do the research but then found the article that confirmed his position."
John Paul:
Sure it does. I can't help it if you have a reading comprehension problem. What do you think this means?
"With this hypothesis in hand, I could thus go into the lab and design experiments to determine if indeed proofreading occurs during transcription. What if I did this? Well, my prediction would have born out."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, of course it does. ID ‘explains’ everything. In fact, it even explains the inexplicable. No '‘naturalistic’ answer to some biological question right now? ID is the answer.
John Paul:
Tell you what- until a purely 'naturalistic' answer comes along, it is safe to infer ID.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Not in science. In science, one infers what there is good evidence for.
John Paul:
Well then, that settles that. There is NO evidence, good or otherwise, that DNA, RNA or life could originate naturally. So by your logic we are right to infer ID. Thanks.
SLP:
What you are doing is taking the ignorant man's out - it is a logical fallacy and a poor way of doing science. "Until you prove blue fairies push the sun around the cosmos, I will infer that it is red fairies."
John Paul:
What you are doing is proving just how a small mind works. Thanks again.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 01-02-2002 2:40 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 01-02-2002 7:31 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 53 by derwood, posted 01-03-2002 1:26 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 210 (1496)
01-03-2002 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by mark24
01-02-2002 7:31 PM


mark24:
I can't wait for the work on baramins to be completed.
John Paul:
Me too.
mark24
I wonder what baramin the Giraffe will be under?
John Paul:
Me too.
mark24:
Soooooooo. How did those arterial valves evolve? The Onyx doesn't have them? Or perhaps, how did the Onyx lose its valves in a mere 4,500 years.
John Paul:
Seeing that 'Onyx' is a mineral I doubt it has any arterial valves, so it couldn't have lost them. I think you meant Okapi. And just because we place the Okapi in family Giraffidae (order Artiodactyla), doesn't mean it belongs there.
mark24:
Since genetic materiel is going to be used to classify, its going to be interesting to see how they squirm out of this one. The Onyx is genetically close to the Giraffe, so, how do we rationalise putting them in different baromins, whilst using the same data to put other organisms in the same baromin?
John Paul:
As you just learned the Onyx is NOT genetically close to the Giraffe. In fact the Onyx has no genetic material at all.
mark24:
They're going to screw up somewhere & we're going to say, hey, those creationists can't explain how such & such evolved/adapted, God/ID must therefore be false. Sound familiar? Would you accept that rationale?
Life on this planet is EXTREMELY varied, if one example of a baramin has some particular adaption that they never thought of, then evolution MUST be true, because the adaption evolved from a kind that never had the adaption.
John Paul:
OK, for the record, Creationists do not have a problem with evolution or adaptaion. The debate arises when we start discussing the from what did life's diversity evolve, what is the extent of evolution and what is its apparent direction.
mark24:
They should have left classification well alone, they're going to get crucified.
John Paul:
Did you know that Linnaeus was a Creationist? Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?
If Creationists get 'crucified' doing valid scientific research then so be it. That would mean that other 'origins' scientists will most likely get 'crucified' too. Or are they excused because they are working under the materialistic naturalism framework?
So tell me mark24, can you tell us what the alleged original population(s) of organisms (specifically) started the diversity of life? I have been waiting for that answer for at least 35 years.
(edited for typos)
------------------
John Paul
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-03-2002]
[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 01-02-2002 7:31 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John Paul, posted 01-03-2002 9:14 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 01-03-2002 11:04 AM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 210 (1497)
01-03-2002 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Paul
01-03-2002 7:20 AM


Or mark24, did you mean Oryx (family Bovidae, order Artiodactyla)? Is the Oryx genetically close to Giraffes? If so then perhaps its classification is incorrect.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 01-03-2002 7:20 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by mark24, posted 01-03-2002 9:46 AM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 210 (1506)
01-03-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by mark24
01-03-2002 11:04 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Did you know that Linnaeus was a Creationist? Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24:
Linnaeus was a creationist? Well, kudos to him for not letting a religious document affect his conclusions.
John Paul:
Add Newton, Kepler, Pasteur et al. to the list of Creationists that have no conflict with science.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
OK, for the record, Creationists do not have a problem with evolution or adaptation. The debate arises when we start discussing the from what did life's diversity evolve, what is the extent of evolution and what is its apparent direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24:
Creationists DO have a problem with evolution.
John Paul:
No we do not. We DO have a problem with what evolutionists are doing with the concept.
mark24:
Abiogenesis & evolution are different. If there’s no problem, why bother with kinds at all? Since we all accept common descent from a single ancestor.
John Paul:
Do read my posts before you respond to them? I would have to guess you do not because if you had read my post you would have read this:
The debate arises when we start discussing the from what did life's diversity evolve, what is the extent of evolution and what is its apparent direction.
In other words we do NOT agree with the 'common descent from a single ancestor'. In fact even Darwin said it could be a few and Larry (one of the moderators here) has posted that Doolittle says the same thing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
If Creationists get 'crucified' doing valid scientific research then so be it. That would mean that other 'origins' scientists will most likely get 'crucified' too. Or are they excused because they are working under the materialistic naturalism framework?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24:
My main point was, how would the classifiers of baramins be able to exclude genetic information (since its going to be used), when they use it elsewhere?
John Paul:
They don't exclude it. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.
mark24:
If the Giraffe is genetically close to the OKAPI, & other organisms have been classified with this data, how will the classifiers be able to put them in separate baramins?
John Paul:
Like I said there is more to the equation than genetic similarities.
mark24:
They will need to, or they will have to explain Giraffe arterial valves, or the Okapis lack of them. The classifiers will pick & choose what information they like & ignore other criteria THEY have chosen to apply elsewhere. I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake.
John Paul:
Please tell us how to genetically check extinct organisms.
mark24:
Secondly, how will they be able to use genetic info to imply descent in say, felines, & then ignore the same methods that point to felines & canines sharing ancestors?
John Paul:
Because there is more than genetic info in the equation. Felines and canines sharing a common ancestor is just an evolutionist imagination gone awry. Nothing more.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 01-03-2002 11:04 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 01-03-2002 12:40 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 54 by derwood, posted 01-03-2002 1:45 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 210 (1508)
01-03-2002 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mark24
01-03-2002 12:40 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark24:
I do wish you would read my posts! (you’re not the only one that can be insufferable). If you did, you would have seen, I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake. , implying that I did know many organisms haven’t been classified genetically.
John Paul:
Real good mark24. Too bad my statement came before yours. So it was NOT in response to-I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake.
My statement came in post 46, yours in post 49. You should have given up after the 'Onyx' post. LOL!
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 01-03-2002 12:40 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by mark24, posted 01-03-2002 2:56 PM John Paul has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 210 (1511)
01-03-2002 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by derwood
01-03-2002 1:45 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
They don't exclude it{genetic information}. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLP:
Yes, it is.
John Paul:
No it isn't.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by derwood, posted 01-03-2002 1:45 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by derwood, posted 01-03-2002 4:21 PM 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