Summations Only

Perhaps you could remember this; most atheists don't object to what you believe - it puzzles us but we know that belief is 'normal' and seemingly had some evolutionary advantage.What we DON'T appreciate is believers trying to show that their beliefs are rational and, worse, denying science's discoveries because of their irrational beliefs.

To continue on this point, it isn't what believers believe that we object to. It's what they do when they act on those beliefs, like trying to influence public school science curricula.--Percy

Hi NoNukes Agreed, and when Bolder-dash did similar in regards foraminifera on another thread it was not moderated but debated. Bolder-dash has presented some good arguments in earlier threads, imho. Personally, I think he is dealing with boundaries of his cognitive dissonance bubble, and that this has superseded\impeded his more scientific approach. You can only push your bubble so far before having to deal with the boundaries.Enjoy

I m well aware of the tactics used by this forum and other places (such as Wikipedia) that have the clear purpose of trying to control the debate on the subject through censorship and other means, just the same way they wish to control any discussion even of just the weaknesses in the theory in schools. That is not science, that is propaganda, which is mostly what this site wants to be. You have just stated that you accept an un-level playing field. Why?Secondly, you say that evolution and ID can be accepted together, as if the evolution we are talking about is not Darwinian evolution. But that doesn't make any sense. Everyone on this site who talks about evolution is referring to Darwinian evolution. As soon as you change the dynamics of how that evolution can perform-that is to say that the evolution can occur through guidance or pre-planning-you have relinquished the entire notion that these evolutionists require-a process that requires not intelligence. A God if you will. There is no other option. As such, ID can never co-exist with the evolution that the supporters of the theory adhere to.You can't say that evolution has intelligence, but claim that intelligence is an accident of an initial random process. Its either at its core a random process or it isn't. There is no third choice, and I think its really equivocating to suggest there can be.

Well, actually, most of the members here haven't been condescending to me in the slightest, so I don't consider it an un-level playing field. But does it significantly matter if they're allowed to insult you and (apparently) you're not? Why would you even want to bring yourself down to that level? Actually, in this context, I was using the word "evolution" to refer to "common descent." But it is my position that engineering and teleology have played roles in the history of life on earth, so by your definition of evolution, then yes, my position is at odds with that of most of the individuals here, as I stated previously. And given that I do hold a position that is "unorthodox" to this forum, and am an ID proponent, why is it that I have had no experiences with moderation? Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

You seem to delight in taking positions of neutrality. First you said that indeed the evolutionists here often are condescending, but now you appear to be walking back that statement-OK, that's your choice. You also have admitted that the playing field is not level here, but you simply wish for me to accept that and argue on your terms. That's your preference not mine.But your arguments become more problematic to me with statements like this:

quote:

---

But here's the deal: ID and evolution can work together, and complement each other. You can have engineering and evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. What is exclusive is either the view that intelligent design must deny evolution or that evolution implies that every feature in biology must be the product of random mutation and natural selection (and other mechanisms).

---

ID indeed must deny evolution, as the word is used to mean a system. Now ok, you have said you are now using the word evolution as a substitute for common descent, which is of course confusing, because one doesn't know when you no longer simply mean common descent. Because you go on suggest that Random mutations and natural selection indeed can be part of the package of your version of ID. I guess its sort of a water downed version which is not really sure if it is saying processes are guided or they aren't. Maybe you could be more clear on this. Does your theory rule out Darwinian evolution or doesn't it?It allows for some Darwinian evolution but not others? Where are you drawing the line, how much change can Darwinian evolution account for, and how much is guided? And which came first, the Darwinian evolution or the guided evolution? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

You are incorrect nonukes, I have been banned from science discussions.Not only that I was also immediately reprimanded by PD admin for asking as to why under the topic of discussion problems, because apparently this is not a discussion problem (funny definitions if you ask me). Of course it was no problem at all for panda to use "reporting discussion problems" for whatever enjoyment he chooses.But the most important point is that evolutionist here are constantly given the benefit of the doubt that everything they say is supported by evidence without actually ever needing to provide that evidence, whereas the reverse is not true. You get to put this badge next to every statement you make that says your ideas have been thoroughly vetted through the "scientific method" without ever needing to actually prove this is so. You can say evidence abounds for your theory, but if asked to provide that evidence you can run under the skirts of the admins protection. That is standard practice here.And this is how the discussion is thwarted and controlled by the site. If one questions if that is really true, you are accused of being off topic, and thus its impossible to refute wild claims made by the evolutionists. While creationists are forced to meet impossible standards of written verification or they are said to be thwarting the rules. The evolutionist is free to just say anything they want and pretend that its true. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: I replied to Bolder-dash about the message (restricted out of only the Biological Evolution forum) via PM.

I would change that to: I attempt to take positions that are as objective as possible.The 'Darwinians' here are indeed often condescending, but they are not condescending to me. I was simply pointing that out so that you would understand that, to me, the playing field is perfectly level. Huh? ID is used to mean a system? That all depends on how you define Darwinian evolution. If you define Darwinian evolution as simply random mutation and natural selection acting on populations, then no, my ID hypotheses do not rule out Darwinian evolution. If, on the other hand, you define Darwinian evolution as the theory that all biological features (in a general sense) arose without the input of intelligence, then obviously the ID hypotheses and this definition of Darwinian evolution are not compatible. I think your approach to biological origins is significantly different than mine. You're trying to figure out what Darwinian evolution can and cannot do, while I'm focusing on developing an intelligent design hypothesis that would make testable predictions. Put differently, you're trying to prove a negative: you're endeavoring to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution is not a sufficient explanation for the origin of all biological complexity. On the other hand, I'm seeking to formulate a hypothesis which would provide a better explanation than the current theory. You're trying to prove a negative, and I'm trying to demonstrate a positive. Do you think you see the difference?Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This post is like from the twilight zone. I can't see in any way how it relates to what I was discussing with genomicus.But it does highlight one point that is relevant. During the topic of Shapiro and Wrights papers, the point of the modern synthesis was brought and how Shapiros and Wrights concepts could be incorporated into the modern synthesis. The comments from me (which were deleted by admin and deemed off topic!) were directly related to what the modern synthesis actually means in terms of evolutionary theory. Bringing up the modern synthesis during that discussion by you and others was not considered off topic, but asking you to define what the modern synthesis actually means was!It is a perfect example of the absurdity of how discussions are controlled here. My sin wasn't being off topic, I was no more off topic than you were. My sin was making sense of the holes in your theory.

I am still not clear from you-does your hypothesis allow both random mutations and natural selection to be a force of evolution, AS WELL AS guided mutations and a guided system to be a force of evolution? The two work in tandem?Which is more prevalent? Which came first? Which has precedent? Which creates novel functions?

So - you have abandoned all pretence and have gone for an all out bare faced lie.Your lies are why people treat you with contempt.
If you could stop lying it would improve people's attitude to you.

I'm not of the school of thought which says that mutations were somehow "guided." It is my position that the first genomes on earth were engineered by some intelligence(s), and that these genomes contained the necessary information to bias the path of future evolution such that complex life forms (e.g., Metazoa) would be quite likely to evolve. And if the first genomes were engineered, then the molecular machines encoded by those genomes were likewise engineered. So, you see, we have engineering of the first genomes and first molecular machines, and the first genomes bias evolution in planned trajectories. But after the engineering of the first genomes, no intelligent intervention takes place.How did this evolution take place? Through random mutation and natural selection. Interestingly, mutations aren't quite random, though, because of phenomena like cytosine deamination - and such features could be exploited by the designers such that the initial states are poised to evolve in specific directions.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

The focus of the thread was centered around whether or not the data in the Wright paper demonstrated non-random mutations. Bringing up redefinitions of the modern synthesis was completely off topic. You never commented on any of the data from the paper which was the topic. I started that thread so we could end those endless debates on what so and so meant. I thought it was more important to talk about about what the evidence actually indicated. Then I urge you to go to that topic and demonstrate that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness, and use the data in the Wright paper to support your argument. Here is the link again:EvC Forum: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation

Perhaps I have a problem with what you definition of what random means then.You are suggesting that there is a biased path pro-ordained into the structure of the genome. So a biased path would be a path that isn't random. But its random mutations and natural selection which control evolution. But interestingly (or one can say confusingly) not quite random, because some features can be exploited to not be random. So its pro-programmed randomness?So at the heart of your intelligent design hypothesis is randomness? In your theory does the genome have an inherent desire to improve itself or an inherent drive to survive? And it does so through means of mutations which could lead to destruction just as likely (or more likely) through deleterious mutations as beneficial ones?You still seem to be wanting to play both sides of the fence.

In order to discuss randomness vs. non-randomness first we must know what that means. You call the "modern synthesis" a culmination of that randomness, without really ever saying what that synthesis is. I think those are misleading terms which require more complex explanations.So I disagree with you abut what is on topic and what isn't.