zandore Posted October 12, 2006 #76 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Like I said I see adaptation working, and sometimes we can see it work over just several generations,...... And most of the time it takes thousands or millions of years. ......I do not see one species change into another. Read my above comment..... Goannas and iguanas are venomous – sharing a common venomous ancestor with snakes – according to a University of Melbourne-led discovery which effectively rewrites the history of reptile evolution. The research describes for the first time the existence of oral venom glands in goannas and iguanas and proves that venom systems in snakes and lizards evolved before the two species went on different evolutionary pathways. Led by Dr Bryan Fry of the University’s Australian Venom Research Unit, the research was published recently in the science journal Nature. Dr Fry says the discovery provides new insights into the evolution of the venom system in reptiles and presents a major paradigm shift in the understanding of reptile evolution. “It not only has profound theoretical implications but also has enormous potential for drug design and development since these are venoms that have been separated for up to 200 million years from anything previously studied.” SOURCE Some reading material for you. ucmp.berkeley.edu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big cheese Posted October 12, 2006 #77 Share Posted October 12, 2006 (edited) And here is why I cannot accept the idea. Christians are considered to be self-serving when they bring up faith as part of an answer about how the "impossible" can happen. I would posit that evolutionists do the same by bringing up the idea of millons of years. "Of course we can prove to you that evolution happens, just sit here and wait for a couple of million years and we will see birds turn into an intelligent bipedal life form." Not really as we can look at genetic lineage and fossils we can trace an organisms ancestry via its genetic fingerprint if you will ,I don’t think the same can be said for religion so its not a case of using the vast timeframes that cant be so easily checked as a loop hole Edited October 12, 2006 by Big cheese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted October 12, 2006 #78 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Not really as we can look at genetic lineage and fossils we can trace an organisms ancestry via its genetic fingerprint if you will ,I don’t think the same can be said for religion so its not a case of using the vast timeframes that cant be so easily checked as a loop hole Introduction Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences. This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated. MORE HERE.....Not that I think you will read it Iams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted October 12, 2006 #79 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Yes I agree but we have to remember we are talking infinites here If we are to believe a multiverse view then there is an infinite number of possible universes all existing simultaneously many unable to sustain our kind of life others capable and as we are bound by our laws of physics and as you say could not exist without them it is logical that we would only come into being in a place suitable for us ,This universe. Therefore we can only observe and see the universe as "designed" for us Which is not necessarily the case Thing is though, we have no evidence that any other universe has been created or "attempted to be"(Gah, is there a better term for this or am I just missing it everytime?). To be honest(Though I have no problem with assuming this) I don't see why we should assume that this universe is NOT the only universe, and that it only took ONE ATTEMPT to become what it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 12, 2006 #80 Share Posted October 12, 2006 ....Not that I think you will read it Iams. OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH! Zan, I do not have a problem with stating that macroevolution is a scientic theory. I don't even have a problem with studying evidence. My biggest problem with macroevolution is that people keep trying to pass it off as proven fact, when there is NO WAY to actually prove it. I'm not saying there is no evidence to support it (although that keeps getting questionned by scientists), I am just saying the truth is it cannot be currently proven to be true and is just a theory. Have you read the article I asked aquatus1 to read? Don't worry it doesn't question evolution much it just makes a case for the validity of ID as a scientific theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samael Posted October 12, 2006 #81 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I do not belive in Intelligent Design. Period. There are so many reasons why ID is wrong and Natural Selection is right, which I'm not going to go into just now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted October 13, 2006 #82 Share Posted October 13, 2006 OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH! That be no faith.... SPECIATION / MACROEVOLUTION EVIDENCE Collection of Resources That Most Effectively Point to Macroevolution Mostly found on the ENSI site. SPECIATION / MACROEVOLUTION EVIDENCE The evidence for "microevolution" (adaptive changes within species) is supported by an abundance of easily observed examples. However, "macroevolution" (including speciation and the formation of all major groups of organisms by that same process repeated over millions of years), is not as obvious to many people. Nevertheless, there are several different lines of evidence that do indeed point to this very convincingly. Take the time to explore the online links mentioned to further extend your understanding, and, more importantly, help your students to explore these, too. Chromosome Comparisons: First, there are the very striking similarities between all of our chromosomes and those of the apes. Take a look at this at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chro.all.html. For an even sharper version (if you have wideband internet access, e.g. DSL), be sure to scroll to the bottom of that page and download the high resolution PDF file mentioned there. The result is quite suitable for printing copies for your students to study. You might even want to use one of the ENSI lessons that give students a chance to study these more closely, including clear examples of inversions, etc.: The Chromosome Connection, at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.con2.html, and Comparison of Human and Chimpanzee Chromosomes, at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chromcom.html. Most people assume that chromosome numbers are a constant for each species and that this supposedly prevents functional fertility between species. It turns out that this is quite true. A particularly revealing article can be found at http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html. It's only about two pages, but be sure to read it all, especially the few paragraphs beyond the chromosome diagrams, regarding chromosome variations within a species, and fertility between species. There are a number of examples where different species, with different chromosome numbers, have produced fertile offspring. Even more impressive (in that same article, and also discussed on another site: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chi...hromosome.html) is the clear evidence that our chromosome #2 is a result of the end-to-end fusion of two shorter chromosomes (found today in apes: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans), probably very early in our hominid line, after chimps and gorillas branched off on their own lines from our common ancestor. The banding patterns of those chromosomes provide a strong indication of this, and subsequent DNA sequencing further confirms it. If that fusion indeed did happen, then we should be able to find evidence of chromosome ends meeting near the middle of chromosome #2. As it happens, all chromosomes have many repeats of the same DNA sequence at both ends (telomeres). Upon inspection, such "tandem repeats" are indeed found in the region of chromosome 2 exactly where they must have fused. This is very compelling, something very hard to explain either by special creation or intelligent design, but easy to explain as an event in evolution. Our new Chromosome Fusion lesson can be used in biology classes for students to find those same DNA sequences using the same internet tools and databases that scientists use. http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html. In addition, there are the patterns of molecular evidence that make sense only if macroevolution has occurred. One of several lessons on this site is the comparison of beta hemoglobin in primates, at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/mol.prim.html. Similar studies have been done with a huge number of species and many different proteins, all with similar indications: macroevolution. And don't overlook the abundant fossil evidence, much of it pointing clearly to macroevolution. A most revealing resource showing this is "Transitional Fossils", summarized from a much larger article on the Talk Origins site (see link to the original article in that summary), by Kathleen Hunt: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html. A very recent addition (Jan. 2006) to the TalkOrigins site is "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc. Finally, be sure to check out the long list of actual Observed Examples of Speciation, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. Additional ENSI lessons that reflect macroevolution include the following: Becoming Whales: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/theor.ch.html Hominid Cranium Comparisons: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hom.cran.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 13, 2006 #83 Share Posted October 13, 2006 (edited) OK, zan, I have scanned and skimmed through the articles, I will not claim I sat and read all of them, but I did look through all of them and read parts of them which I thought had the relevant information. It is all very interesting, but I really did not see anything that can ONLY be explained by macroevolution. I don't see why an intlligent designer couldn't have done it. For example, don't the truly intelligent software designers reuse elegant code often instead of unintelligently rewriting code after similar code? Edited October 13, 2006 by IamsSon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted October 13, 2006 #84 Share Posted October 13, 2006 It is all very interesting, but I really did not see anything that can ONLY be explained by macroevolution. And that is why it stopped being "Creation" and became "Intelligent Design" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 16, 2006 #85 Share Posted October 16, 2006 And that is why it stopped being "Creation" and became "Intelligent Design" Of course, "If we can't find a good argument let's make fun of it and call it names and then no one will notice we can't make a point." Seems to work around here quite well. Hey aquatus, have you finished reading the article? I'm ready to begin learning as soon as you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 16, 2006 #86 Share Posted October 16, 2006 (edited) Hey aquatus, have you finished reading the article? I'm ready to begin learning as soon as you are. Hello, yes, I have read the article, although I admit it was a bit difficult to keep my attention from wandering at times. I apologize for taking so long; last week became suddenly hectic. So, I suppose the question is: Where do you wish to begin? Edited October 16, 2006 by aquatus1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 16, 2006 #87 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Hello, yes, I have read the article, although I admit it was a bit difficult to keep my attention from wandering at times. I apologize for taking so long; last week became suddenly hectic. So, I suppose the question is: Where do you wish to begin? Ha ha, yes it was a very long article. Well, my first question is, are you able to consider intelligent design as a valid scientific theory? I am not at this point asking if it is a better or even equal theory to evolution, I want to determine what the foundations for our conversation will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted October 16, 2006 #88 Share Posted October 16, 2006 And that is why it stopped being "Creation" and became "Intelligent Design" Of course, "If we can't find a good argument let's make fun of it and call it names and then no one will notice we can't make a point." How did I make fun of ID? All I did was point out a fact. AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding. Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts. Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution: Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms; Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution; Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims; Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education; Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools; Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education; Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government. Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02 American Association for the Advancement of Science Why should just one religions belief in creation be accepted as fact and all other beliefs in creation be false? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 16, 2006 #89 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Ha ha, yes it was a very long article. Well, my first question is, are you able to consider intelligent design as a valid scientific theory? I am not at this point asking if it is a better or even equal theory to evolution, I want to determine what the foundations for our conversation will be. Well, prior to deciding if Intelligent Design is a valid theory, I will have to hear an actual theory. "Evolution" is not a scientific theory. Evolution is an umbrella term used to cover a variety of theories that have to do with the adaptation of the genome through generations. It is a little bit like saying "Erosion"; the word is only a reference to the final effects of a variety of other theories. When asking if evolution is a scientific theory, one must first define which evolutionary theory we are talking about, and what that theory consists of. The same must be done with Intelligent Design. One cannot pass a judgement so specific as "Is it a scientific theory." on something so general as "Intelligent Design. In general, I have yet to encounter a theory of Intelligent Design which meets all five pre-requisites of scientific methodology. Remember, it isn't enough to meet just one or two of them. Every single theory in existance, whether in the field of physics, biology, mathematics, or any other you care to name, must meet all five pre-requisites of scientific methodology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 16, 2006 #90 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Well, prior to deciding if Intelligent Design is a valid theory, I will have to hear an actual theory. "Evolution" is not a scientific theory. Evolution is an umbrella term used to cover a variety of theories that have to do with the adaptation of the genome through generations. It is a little bit like saying "Erosion"; the word is only a reference to the final effects of a variety of other theories. When asking if evolution is a scientific theory, one must first define which evolutionary theory we are talking about, and what that theory consists of. The same must be done with Intelligent Design. One cannot pass a judgement so specific as "Is it a scientific theory." on something so general as "Intelligent Design. In general, I have yet to encounter a theory of Intelligent Design which meets all five pre-requisites of scientific methodology. Remember, it isn't enough to meet just one or two of them. Every single theory in existance, whether in the field of physics, biology, mathematics, or any other you care to name, must meet all five pre-requisites of scientific methodology. So, from your standpoint, that portion of the Theory of Evolution which purports to explain the origin of life through pure random chance is not a theory. Well, then we agree on this part. I will work on specifying which theory of intelligent design I woud like to discuss, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 16, 2006 #91 Share Posted October 16, 2006 So, from your standpoint, that portion of the Theory of Evolution which purports to explain the origin of life through pure random chance is not a theory. Well, then we agree on this part. IamSon, when you said "I want to determine what the foundations for our conversation will be.", I pretty much answered with the same though in mind. Tell me, is this to be what I should think of your character? You asked before if I could discuss this in an unbiased fashion. With the response that you gave above, I have to ask you the exact same question: Can you discuss this topic in an unbiased fashion, or is this a win/lose game to you? If you intend to do the obove throughout our entire conversation, then this needs to end now. As I said before, I am willing to teach, but I will not waste my time if I am going to have to spend every post untwisting what you claim that I said. In the event that you missed it, no, that is not my standpoint, and I suspect that you both knew that an intentionally misrepresented what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 16, 2006 #92 Share Posted October 16, 2006 IamSon, when you said "I want to determine what the foundations for our conversation will be.", I pretty much answered with the same though in mind. Tell me, is this to be what I should think of your character? You asked before if I could discuss this in an unbiased fashion. With the response that you gave above, I have to ask you the exact same question: Can you discuss this topic in an unbiased fashion, or is this a win/lose game to you? If you intend to do the obove throughout our entire conversation, then this needs to end now. As I said before, I am willing to teach, but I will not waste my time if I am going to have to spend every post untwisting what you claim that I said. In the event that you missed it, no, that is not my standpoint, and I suspect that you both knew that an intentionally misrepresented what I said. No. I thought you were stating that you see a scientific theory as only one which meets all 5 prerequisites of the scientific method. Since macroevolution as an origin theory, does not meet all 5 prerequisites of the scientific method, I thought the discussion was going to move toward why origins science theories are different from practical science theories. Apparently I was wrong. If you read any of my posts, I do not "twist" what others say, and frankly, I resent the accusation. If you are unable to have this discussion, don't try to make it because I was uncooperative. I am trying to understand what the basis of the conversation is going to be, just like I said. So, from what you just stated in your last post, may I make the inference that you do believe that macroevolution is a valid scientific theory despite the fact that it does not and cannot meet all 5 prerequisites of the scientific method? I am not trying to put words in your mouth or twist anything. To me it seems that is what you are saying. Because macroevolution as an origins theory cannot meet even the 1st prerequisite: there is no way to conduct the necessary observation. We may be able to observe macroevolution taking place now (which I doubt), but there is no way to obeserve or verify that this was how life started, so it is not a practical science theory it is an origins science theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 16, 2006 #93 Share Posted October 16, 2006 I am not trying to put words in your mouth or twist anything. To me it seems that is what you are saying. That is precisely what I was saying. If you read any of my posts, I do not "twist" what others say, and frankly, I resent the accusation. If you are unable to have this discussion, don't try to make it because I was uncooperative. I am trying to understand what the basis of the conversation is going to be, just like I said. IamSon, the entire paragraph was very clearly explaining how "evolution" was not a specific theory but rather a general term for many theories. I called "evolution" an umbrella term, I compared it with "erosion" in that it did not define a specific theory but a variety of others, and I even distinguished betwen "evolution" and "evolutionary theory", and on top of that, I even called one "general" and the other "specific" You come back with a statement that you understood me to say that one very specific evolutionary theory defined in a specific manner was not a scientific theory. What am I supposed to think? No. I thought you were stating that you see a scientific theory as only one which meets all 5 prerequisites of the scientific method. That is only one part, and not even the major part, of the entire post. You did get that right, though. Since macroevolution as an origin theory, does not meet all 5 prerequisites of the scientific method, I thought the discussion was going to move toward why origins science theories are different from practical science theories. Apparently I was wrong. Very much so. We haven't even begun to discuss specific evolutionary theories. And we haven't even talked about abiogenesis. You assume way too much. So, from what you just stated in your last post, may I make the inference that you do believe that macroevolution is a valid scientific theory despite the fact that it does not and cannot meet all 5 prerequisites of the scientific method? No you may not. You may not because we have not discussed any specific evolutionary theories, let alone whether or not they meet all 5 pre-requisites. Because macroevolution as an origins theory cannot meet even the 1st prerequisite: there is no way to conduct the necessary observation. We may be able to observe macroevolution taking place now (which I doubt), but there is no way to obeserve or verify that this was how life started, so it is not a practical science theory it is an origins science theory. If you wish to begin discussing specific scientific theories, then we must begin by defining the specific theory we are talking about. In this particular case, you seem to think that you are talking about a specific theory, but as it turns out, you are not. Macroevolution does not exist as a scientific theory. There is no such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 17, 2006 #94 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Macroevolution does not exist as a scientific theory. There is no such thing. Well, let's make sure we are not going to misunderstand each other. What do you call the theory or portion of the theory covered under the Evolution umbrella which purports that the origins of life may be explained through macroevolutionary changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 17, 2006 #95 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Well, let's make sure we are not going to misunderstand each other. What do you call the theory or portion of the theory covered under the Evolution umbrella which purports that the origins of life may be explained through macroevolutionary changes? There is no evolutionary theory that concerns the origins of life. That is an entirely seperate field of study known as Abiogenesis. Evolutionary theories only cover the mutation of the genome through generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 17, 2006 #96 Share Posted October 17, 2006 There is no evolutionary theory that concerns the origins of life. That is an entirely seperate field of study known as Abiogenesis. Evolutionary theories only cover the mutation of the genome through generations. Obviously, we still need to make sure we are speaking the same language and about the same actual processes. So, I have the following questions/requests. Can we agree that Intelligent Design is a theory which states "that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development."? (Columbia University Press Encyclopedia) If you do not agree with this definition, what is the definition you use? Would you also please state what the prerequisites of the scientific method are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted October 17, 2006 #97 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Obviously, we still need to make sure we are speaking the same language and about the same actual processes. So, I have the following questions/requests. Absolutely. Can we agree that Intelligent Design is a theory which states "that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development."? (Columbia University Press Encyclopedia) We can agree that this is one of many Intelligent Design theories, usually referred to as the Irreducible Complexity argument. Would that be acceptable? Would you also please state what the prerequisites of the scientific method are? Excellent question. Ruthlessly compressed, here they are: 1) The first would be that it needs to explain the currently existing data. 2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future. 3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results. 4) The theory must be falsifiable. 5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event. It's been a while since I talked about Scientific Methodology, and it has always been more a matter of understanding the concept rather than following a set of rules written in stone, so by all means ask away if you have questions, and I will answer to the best of my ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted October 17, 2006 #98 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Obviously, we still need to make sure we are speaking the same language and about the same actual processes. So, I have the following questions/requests. Can we agree that Intelligent Design is a theory which states "that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution, and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development."? (Columbia University Press Encyclopedia) If you do not agree with this definition, what is the definition you use? Would you also please state what the prerequisites of the scientific method are? or the intellegence is the design, and man is attempting to make sense of it in such ideas as bibles, darwinian theorys, constructs etc..... how about if you saw the usefulness in all the constructs, put them together, sort of like a puzzle each piece fits has a place whether we understand it or not it all fits has a place, is integral to the process called life.......the eye sees in many ways , just ask a blind person how they see? is it less important or valid becasue its not "your" way'??is it the only way????could the blind persons way of seeing enhance add a layer to your way, how about the one that can' hear, Ask one who doesn't hear how they hear and i can bet it will add a richness to your own hearing...A reason for many ways, many preceptions is to add to the richness of the life experience......Does an artist paint in only one color even though he can??? That one color is not lost its added too, the layers of color add to its richness...remember that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamsSon Posted October 18, 2006 #99 Share Posted October 18, 2006 We can agree that this is one of many Intelligent Design theories, usually referred to as the Irreducible Complexity argument. Would that be acceptable? That sounds acceptable. So, first question, why is Irreducible Complexity fail the scientific theory test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big cheese Posted October 18, 2006 #100 Share Posted October 18, 2006 From what understand of id it’s an argument against the probability of complexity occurring by random chance and is based on statistics when concerning the probable chance of lets say a protein forming (i know theres more to it but im going to focus on this aspect for now) The first thing that strikes me is that the formation of biological polymers from monomers with regards to proteins is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are not random and are the product of simple chemistry so these process exists out side the context of “life” how does this fit with id? And to me the entire premise that these chemicals somehow randomly organised themselves into organisms like bacteria is wrong , because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria, but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. So this leap from chemistry to complex life is a myth These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems,(rna) then finally into simple organisms. So there is a successive and slow increase in complexity the first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, rather than a fully formed complex organism maybe it’s our definition of life that needs to be questioned rather than theories describing its origin It seems to me id is a religion of fake statistics rather than a real science my opinion of course and im well aware that there are holes in evolution and some of the areas it covers but those holes certainly aren’t filled by id Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now