Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
66 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,150 Year: 4,262/6,534 Month: 476/900 Week: 0/182 Day: 0/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 5 of 150 (861038)
08-16-2019 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jedothek
08-15-2019 2:11 PM


Is ID science?
Welcome to the fray, Jedothik

The issue is not whether you, the reader, like intelligent design. The issue is whether Wikipedia comes across as a source of knowledge or as a swamp of dogma.

It is rather obviously a source of knowledge. Here's the first paragraph:

quote:
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Sounds accurate to me, unlike the article you linked (it makes several logical errors). The best way to show ID is not a pseudoscience would be to do some actual science based on this concept. This step has not been taken.

Please see Is ID properly pursued? for my take on ID (note signature).

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : st


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jedothek, posted 08-15-2019 2:11 PM Jedothek has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 150 (861195)
08-18-2019 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 10:07 AM


... I have nothing better to offer at the moment than the tests suggested in the article I have already indicated,

https://evolutionnews.org/.../a_closer_look_at_one_scientist

Just so you know, it is against forum policy to argue by posting a link. If you think the information in the link is viable (as apparently you do), then quote from it (see my prior Message 5 for how to do that) and then support the argument.

Again I looked at your link briefly and found it contained logical fallacies. Like equivocation. When I have some time to waste I might look at it in greater detail.

Also, I posted a link to another thread here I posted in 2004, Is ID properly pursued?, because my concern -- as a Deist -- is that ID is a weak form of Deism. Here is a quote from that thread:

quote:
Stated simply Intelligent Design ("ID") is the concept that the universe is designed by an [active \ creative] agent and that there are, perhaps, observable traces, evidence of such design in the product of that work.

This assumes a fair degree of development, capability, education and intelligence on the part of the observer. A "Poison Dart" Frog cannot look at a watch and discern that it is a designed object, and neither could a native person unschooled in the concepts of manufacturing such products ... yet he is capable and intelligent enough to discern the cause and effect (and how to make use of) the frog's venom. There are, in fact, historical documents recording where explorers showed watches and the like to such unschooled natives and the natives thought that they were magical objects rather than manufactured things.


Deism is a religion, and this pretty well shows that ID also is a religion, or at best a philosophical pursuit, rather than science.

So far you have offered nothing but distress at perceived bias, and this link. Surely there is more to your argument than this.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:07 AM Jedothek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:34 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 28 of 150 (861202)
08-18-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 11:21 AM


Re: ID and creationism
... but note that an ID proponent is not required fully to describe the designer or to say where it came from. ...

Correct, but one thing that is required for science is to describe how the design is implemented. A design sitting on the shelf serves no purpose until it is implemented. How is this done? What is the process?

You said in Message 13:

ID is the doctrine that the world (e.g., the genetic code or the values of physical constants) exhibits signs of having been designed by intelligence. ...

So how is/was the design of the genetic code implemented? What is the process?

When were the designs of the physical constants done -- at the creation of the universe? What was the process that made the whole universe comply?

As I suggested , an ID proponent might think that God only planned life in the beginning, or he might believe that God also guides the process. ...

You are describing Deism and Theism, not ID. Let's stick to ID.

... For example, can natural selection explain the huge growth of the capabilities of the human brain? Some have said that we are way smarter than is required for survival.

Not alone, but then you are committing an error common to YECs and other theists (as well as an argument from incredulity). Evolution contains two basic elements, not one:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

This gets back to my argument in Is ID properly pursued? that the IDologist must have a thorough understanding of all sciences in order to be able to discern design rather than natural system processes. If you are going to make claims that evolution cannot explain certain things then behooves you to become thoroughly familiar with the science of evolution.

Mutation and selection explain the growth and development of the human brain quite adequately. Here for example is a set of skulls:

quote:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)


This clearly shows the increase in brain size. When we talk about brain ability we can note that the Chimpanzee has many abilities comparable to humans, and that the differences between these two species is more a difference in degree than in kind. They are also comparable to the differences seen between chimps and monkeys.

Now if you want to know what caused this growth, my explanation is sexual selection.

What else do you have?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:21 AM Jedothek has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 150 (861214)
08-18-2019 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


... In the case of the ID proponents, surrounded by a mob howling that they are not only mistaken but irrational, it is not human to suggest that they should be seeking evidence against their own theories. ...

They have. It is the scientific process to seek contrary evidence, for only then is knowledge improved.

... ( Lest there be misunderstanding, I acknowledge that RAZD makes a rational case in the article to which he, in violation of his own imperious precept, links.) ...

It is a fine line between an external link and one to a different thread on this forum. The point is to debate with the author of the article, which you can obviously do on the different threads in this forum. Another link you might be interested in is to the Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... thread.

ID has been much discussed on this forum, and referring to previous threads is a way of saving time.

... It is natural and expected for a scholar to seek and present evidence that buttresses his case. ...

But not to cherry-pick evidence and neglect evidence that is contrary and problematic.

... I do not recall that Newton in the Principia made an effort to present evidence against his own theories; that was the task of the larger scientific community.

And it was before the scientific method was formalized. In any case, an anomaly in the orbit of Mercury lead us to relativity being a better explanation. Science grows on the shoulders of those who came before.

So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is accomplished? By what process is it implemented?

How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 150 (861224)
08-18-2019 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-18-2019 2:49 PM


Re: ID and creationism
... unless it's to avoid the secondary problems of trying to specify how the design came about ...

Indeed. It is either natural or supernatural. If it is natural then no god/s need apply. If it is supernatural then god/s are involved.

Note that not having an explanation doesn't mean there isn't one, just that it hasn't been developed yet.

... apparently they don't consider essential to the main idea: that the phenomena exhibit the marks of intelligent design. ...

And the question here is how do we know this? Is it just some currently unexplained phenomenon, or is it something that cannot be explained with science as we know it? Which again leads to supernatural.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 2:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 3:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 150 (861261)
08-19-2019 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by JonF
08-18-2019 3:42 PM


Re: ID and creationism
Yes, they don't consider the how or the who important. They're wrong, partly for reasons given above and all over the Web. I think the biggest problem is that without those elements it's vapid and sterile. OK, everything is designed. Now what? The answer to all questions is "the Designer dunnit, we cannot have any idea how or by whom".

This is why ID is a weak form of Deism. They stop there, "the Designer (god/s) dunnit" pleased with their accomplishment. The Deist says "now let's see how it was done" -- what does science say these things happened, what does the evidence say.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 08-18-2019 3:42 PM JonF has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 150 (861262)
08-19-2019 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
08-18-2019 3:38 PM


agnostic ID/Deism
Isn't that their task: to demonstrate what they mean by intelligent design? ...

and define their terms, such as information and complexity, and how they are measured.

... We don't need to get into the nature of the designer at all. It's hard enough to convince anyone of the marks of design. I think they're obvious. You don't. Most here don't.

The open-minded skeptic will say it may look like design, but how can we be sure? If it can be explained by natural processes, then it can't be design. If it can't be explained, then there is a possibility, but not a probability -- more information is needed before it can be concluded one way or the other, because it is also possible that we just don't know how it was done naturally.

We are limited in our ability to understand, by our ability to understand. It's the incomplete understanding we have that limits our understanding.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 3:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 7:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 66 of 150 (861289)
08-19-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
08-19-2019 7:21 AM


Re: agnostic ID/Deism and the preponderance of evidence
My 2 cent worth:

The open-minded skeptic will say it may look like design, but how can we be sure? If it can be explained by natural processes, then it can't be design.

There is no way to prove such a thing one way or the other; it's a subjective judgment. You can make up a string of supposed natural processes and convince yourself that's enough to disprove design but to someone else, like me for instance, it looks like a flimflam. ...

When the preponderance of evidence shows that known natural processes are fully capable of producing a certain result, that means that we don't need to add a supernatural process to explain it.

For instance when we look at dog breeds and see variations in bone lengths, variations in skull sizes and shapes, we see that mutation and selection are fully capable of producing these results. When we look at the differences in chimpanzee to human bone lengths and skull sizes and shapes we see that these differences are less than those observed in dog breeds. The preponderance of evidence shows that natural processes of mutation and selection are therefore fully capable of producing these results and we don't need to add a supernatural process to explain it.

Meanwhile you have never proved evolution is not possible, in spite of what you think.

There is no way to prove such a thing one way or the other; ...

And science never does prove results (you should now this by now), just provides the best explanations for the observed evidence with known natural processes: what the preponderance of evidence shows. This explanation is subject to change when new information challenges the explanation (relativity vs Newton's gravity and the orbit of Mercury for example).

... it's a subjective judgment. ...

No, it is an informed tentative conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence and the known natural processes. When we are dealing with subjective opinions, they can be as varied as the people with them, but when informed people reach the same tentative conclusion then they are basing it on the known evidence and the known natural processes.

We know that mutations occur -- they are observed -- so the existence of mutations is FACT.

We know that selection occurs -- it has been observed -- so the existence of selection as a process is FACT.

... All sorts of such sequences have been invented to explain how, say, the eye could have evolved, although the different eyes in the sequence come from all over the taxonomic tree in no particular relation to each other. Just the fact that you can imagine a sequence out of them is enough to persuade some despite the complete lack of any evidence that an evolutionary track from one to another ever happened.

Well I have discussed the eye design on Message 4 of the Silly Design thread ...

... but to put it in perspective here to answer your question, what we have is a preponderance of evidence from different eyes of different stages/levels in development, each one fully functional for the critter involved, that show modification of existing parts from one stage to the next, modifications that we know can occur through mutation and selection. What we also have is nested hierarchies of different eye bearing species that show hereditary processes:

  • all mammals have eyes with a fixed shape of the eyeball, a cornea that can be changed by muscles to focus on a retina with the optical nerve in front of the retina and causing a blind spot.

  • all cephalopods have eyes with fixed cornea and flexible eyeballs that can be changed by muscles to focus on the retina with the optical nerve behind the retina, so no blind spot.

What these two examples show is that

  • the location of the optical nerve is arbitrary, one side or the other, and
  • once selected it becomes the location for all descendants.

This is not design but happenstance. Design, imho, would mean that one system could be added to the other, creating an eye with zoom focus ability like zoom binoculars and zoom cameras (known design viewing systems). Human designers commonly add elements from one design to another. This has never been observed in species, as they are all confined in nested hierarchies without any traits shared across branches. Traits crossing branches to mix with different branches of species would invalidate evolution. This is what should be expected from design. This has not occurred.

But have you in fact "explained" the appearance of design by these {informed by evidence and known processes} purely imagined sequences of natural processes? Is this science? Really?

Fixed it for you ... your reference to "purely imagined sequences" is just an argument from incredulity rather than a refutation actually showing they could not occur. Such arguments are not scientific or informed. Interestingly it is what you have done repeatedly without regard for the preponderance of contrary evidence and in violation of numerous known natural processes.

Again, when the preponderance of evidence shows that known natural processes are fully capable of producing a certain result, that means that we don't need to add any supernatural process/es to explain it.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 7:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 3:59 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 4:47 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 71 of 150 (861321)
08-19-2019 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
08-19-2019 3:59 PM


Re: agnostic ID/Deism and the preponderance of evidence
But if the "evidence" is just an imaginative reconstruction then you don't have a preponderance of evidence.

Then it's a good thing it isn't.

You see no such thing. You see some of the range of variation built into the dog genome, period. ...

This is your imaginary magic genome that does not exist. The genes specific to Great Danes and Bulldogs and Dachshunds do not exist in wild wolves or in other breeds. They are the product of accumulated mutations in each breed, selected over the years by people.

... You assume the "mutation and selection" formula, for which there is no evidence.

Wrong. We've had this conversation before where lots of evidence was presented, which you ignored and continue to ignore.

Sadly, for you, that doesn't make the evidence disappear. We know there are mutations from sequencing the genomes and we know that people selected for given traits that resulted from those mutations.

quote:
Origins & Evolution Of The Domestic Dog

The Grey Wolf is the one, the one that is the direct ancestor of our dogs, all of them, from teacup Chihuahuas to Great Danes, from Alaskan Malamutes to Arabian Salukis.

Huskies’ ancestors were bred to endure ice-cold temperatures and long, draining, races in the snow. Whereas the Salukis, Arabian Greyhounds, were bred for speed so they could hunt quarry such as gazelles and hares. This is why, today, we have over 400 dog breeds that specialise at retrieving, pointing, hunting, pulling, swimming, pulling, searching, etc.

Only today, the trend shifts from breeding dogs for a given purpose to breeding dogs for looks. It leads to a lot of severe medical conditions and it should be a matter of time before the authorities and international canine organisations become stricter about breeding standards.


That image shows a nested hierarchy of dog breeds and wolves from their common ancestors based on the breed genomes -- the differences in genes due to mutations.

We also know from breeding silver foxes and selecting for less aggressive behavior that dog like traits appeared.

First, nobody is talking about a supernatural process here, ...

If it's not a natural process then it must be a supernatural process, by definition.

... but all you have is two different species, chimp and human and no evidence whatever of relatedness between them ...

With due respect, Faith, this too has been discussed before, and your position is ludicrous when you consider all trilobites to be one species but Chimps and Humans to be totally unrelated.

... You don't have evidence of mutation and selection either, you simply assume that as well. All this is imagination and nothing else.

Except that again we do have the evidence, especially in the mutation visible in chromosome 2. Your refusal to accept this evidence is, again, based solely on your opinion and opinion is not fact.

Here is a link that discusses the similarities in reference to ID (to relate this back to the topic):

quote:
Chromosome Fusion: Chance or Design?

For the last few weeks I have been corresponding with someone about intelligent design (ID). More specifically, we have been chatting about why humans have 46 chromosomes and most of the great apes have 48.

To me, this is great evidence for evolution. Why? Because if you look at the chromosomes closely, you can see that human chromosome 2 is really just a fusion of two great ape chromosomes.

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very
similar. Note that human chromosome 2 is very
similar to a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes.

The idea is that a few million years ago, a common human-chimpanzee ancestor of ours had two of his or her chromosomes fused together. This sort of thing happens all the time even today. Around 1 in 1000 live births has one of these kinds of fusions.

Then, probably through chance, this ancestor with the fused chromosomes went on to found the human race. Now people have 46 chromosomes and chimpanzees have 48.

An alternative explanation is that the designers fused the two chromosomes together when they created humans. The idea would be that the designer wouldn’t create every plant, animal, bacteria, and virus from scratch–why reinvent the wheel every time? Instead the designers would mix and match parts that worked.

The difficulty with this idea is that there is no obvious advantage to having 46 chromosomes instead of 48. What matters is our DNA, not how it happens to be packaged.

Also, when you look at the fusion point, you can see that the DNA isn’t exactly what you would expect if a fusion happened in the last 10,000 or even 100,000 years. The results look more like an event that happened millions of years ago.

The ends of a chromosome have a defined sequence of DNA repeats called a telomere. The DNA at the fusion point looks very similar to a string of telomeres (as we would expect from a fusion) but it isn’t perfect. This is just what you would expect if the fusion happened millions of years ago. Because our DNA gets changed a little all of the time.

These DNA changes at the fusion point do not fit with ID if they don’t serve a purpose. Otherwise, why put them there? ...


Evolution from a common ancestor written in DNA. We see a similar pattern between Horses, Donkeys and Zebras, complete with different number of chromosomes. Again, this is part of the preponderance of evidence.

A fair assessment of what I say above should at least suggest ...

... that your ideas are pure imagination unhinged from evidence, and bear no relationship to science.

... that you haven't proved it possible since you are referring to pure hypotheticals and not to actual evidence at all.

Other than the actual evidence actually used to actually show that, actually, humans and chimps are actually very closely related.

Denial of the evidence does not make it go away.

But the point made is that there is more variation in bone lengths and skull size and shape between dog breeds -- which we KNOW evolved -- than there is between bone length and skull size and shape between chimps and humans.

We can also look at the hominid skulls posted in Message 28 and see the gradation in skull size and shape over time. Similar comparisons can be (and have been) made of full skeletons. Evolution from generation to generation adding up to more and more differences between these branches over time.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 3:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 10:55 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 11:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 72 of 150 (861322)
08-19-2019 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
08-19-2019 4:47 PM


Re: imaginary sequences reified is all you have
Curiously, I choose not to reply to your Message 68 that is pure opinion and devoid of any actual evidence based argument that refutes the points I made.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 4:47 PM Faith has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 75 of 150 (861335)
08-20-2019 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
08-19-2019 10:55 PM


Re: No mutations needed (wrong)
The genes specific to Great Danes and Bulldogs and Dachshunds do not exist in wild wolves or in other breeds.

They would definitely NOT exist in other breeds because the whole method of getting a breed is the ELIMINATION of the genetic material for other breeds. As for their existence in wild wolves what do you thihnk you are looking at? Today's wolves can't be the ancestor of all dogs because they'd already have lost all the genetic material for all those breeds down the millennia. The current wolf is not the ancestor of all dogs. Only the original wolf would have all the genetic material for all the breeds and today's wolf would have lost it, making today's wolf just a breed like all the others.

You are correct that the current wolf is not the common ancestor wolf, but that is the only thing you have right.

Again this response is based on your completely unevidenced purely imaginary opinion without a shred value to actual science. We've been over this before, and your insistence on ignoring contrary evidence is well known and noted.

It is also a false conclusion not made from evidence, as we KNOW that mutations have added to the genetic material and resulted in new species.

Pure assumption based on the false statement above; not a shred of evidence.

You've been shown the evidence and you deny it. That doesn't make the evidence go away nor does it in any way refute or even challenge my post.

No mutations needed

Show your evidence. You. don't. have. any. AND you have been shown that your imaginary system is incapable of producing new species (see Population Dynamics - the math behind the evolution of species):

Message 7: The bottom line is that speciation is caused by multiple (at least 2) mutations, and the longer populations are isolated the higher is the probability that incompatible mutations or mutation combinations arise in either of the daughter populations.

It is highly amusing that you claim actual evidence based conclusions are "Pure assumption based on the false statement ...; not a shred of evidence." when that perfectly characterizes your arguments/opinions.

Please note that you are dragging this conversation off topic, as you always do, and try to refrain from further distraction.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 10:55 PM Faith has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 76 of 150 (861337)
08-20-2019 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
08-19-2019 11:15 PM


Re: agnostic ID/Deism and the preponderance of evidence
Yes I know that was your point but it's just a false assumption that there should be a greater difference between chimp and human bones. Why should there be?

Again, it is an evidence based conclusion, based on the preponderance of evidence in the hereditary development of all species on earth, evidence that confirms rather than conflicts with the hereditary relationships developed from taxonomy based on morphology (Linnaeus was "the first to include humans (Homo) taxonomically grouped with apes (Simia), under the header of Anthropomorpha").

Closer matches of DNA mean closer relationships, especially when there are high correlations/matches in virus inserted snips of DNA in the same locations in non-coding/neutral DNA segments, segments that are not critical to expressed traits. In other words, snips of DNA that do nothing but that are in the same locations, and the only way logically for this to occur is that they share a common ancestor with this insertion.

We also KNOW this from DNA analysis where the hereditary relationship is known.

There are more of such inserts common to both chimps and humans than for human compared to any other species.

There are more of such inserts common to both chimps and humans than for chimps compared to gorillas.

There are about the same amount of such inserts common to both gorilla and chimps as there are for gorillas compared to humans.

This pattern -- evidence -- shows that humans and chimps are related and that both evolved from a common ancestor.

... Why should there be?

That is for you to answer if you claim that chimps and humans are NOT related: how did that common DNA pattern occur?

There is nothing in the ID paradigm to say what we should find through science, just that if there is something that science can't explain that alternate explanation/s should be considered. Science has no trouble explaining this close pattern via heredity from common ancestors, ie - evolution.

So as far as this thread is concerned, this is not evidence for design.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 08-19-2019 11:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 08-20-2019 3:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 84 of 150 (861435)
08-21-2019 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
08-20-2019 3:51 PM


Re: agnostic ID/Deism and the preponderance of actual evidence
Curiously, I almost predicted this response, it's so typical.

Wow whqat a lot of mere assertion masquerading as science and you accuse ME of that.

No Faith, evidence and an evidence based conclusion. I've said before that you don't seem to know what evidence is. Let's review:

Message 76: Closer matches of DNA mean closer relationships, especially when there are high correlations/matches in virus inserted snips of DNA in the same locations in non-coding/neutral DNA segments, segments that are not critical to expressed traits. In other words, snips of DNA that do nothing but that are in the same locations, and the only way logically for this to occur is that they share a common ancestor with this insertion.

This is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity from a common ancestor.

(ibid): We also KNOW this from DNA analysis where the hereditary relationship is known.

Such as hereditary comparison of humans in a family. Again this is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity: when we see this pattern we recognize it as the pattern caused by heredity from a common ancestor.

(ibid): There are more of such inserts common to both chimps and humans than for human compared to any other species.

This too is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity from a common ancestor.

(ibid): There are more of such inserts common to both chimps and humans than for chimps compared to gorillas.

Again, this is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity from shared common ancestors.

(ibid): There are about the same amount of such inserts common to both gorilla and chimps as there are for gorillas compared to humans.

And this is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity from a common ancestor.

(ibid): This pattern -- evidence -- shows that humans and chimps are related and that both evolved from a common ancestor.

This is an evidence based conclusion, based on the preponderance of evidence in the hereditary development from common ancestors and the KNOWN signatures it leaves in DNA.

If you have a better scientific explanation (this IS a science thread) for these FACTS, then please elucidate.

... an evidence based conclusion, based on the preponderance of evidence in the hereditary development ...

Q.E.D.

Wow whqat a lot of mere assertion masquerading as science and you accuse ME of that.

Then provide a fact based conclusion using known evidence to support your position, don't just make non-scientific, rude comments based on ignoring this evidence. You don't and you can't because you don't have the evidence -- FACTS -- to support your assertions.

So prove me wrong and provide something other than bald assertions based on opinion and belief.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 08-20-2019 3:51 PM Faith has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 85 of 150 (861436)
08-21-2019 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
08-20-2019 5:21 PM


is it by design?
Diseases and death are the result of the Fall, not the original Creation.

This is an ID thread not a bible thread. Religious myth is not evidence.

And you didn't answer the question ... why do children get cancer: Is this design?

I don't think so.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 08-20-2019 5:21 PM Faith has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 638 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 86 of 150 (861437)
08-21-2019 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
08-20-2019 6:24 PM


NOT A BIBLE THREAD
God's mercy has given us many ways to cure diseases despite our sins. He even sent Jesus to give us eternal life. But we still die on on our way there, and we still have plenty of diseases we can't cure.

ABE: Oh and disease and death took a long time to kick in after the Fall, it was a gradually accumulating thing.

These bald assertions based on belief in the bible have no place on a science thread and no place on an ID thread.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 08-20-2019 6:24 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022