Thread: Intelligent Design ????

Hi

Just to be clear - I've no time for any religious nonsense so when the other day, some guy stops me in the street and thrusts a leaflet
about intelligent design into my face I took the opportunity to respond.

The guy drew my attention to an article showing how more efficient an energy saving light bulb is compared to a conventional one.
The article then went on to declare that firefly light is even more efficient and thus cited this as a justification of intelligent design.

There is no point putting forward a reasoned scientific argument to these people as they are too far gone to be objective but I thought I'd try
to use the argument against itself by pointing out the incredible variety of species of living things can be considered [ in 'design' speak ] as prototypes.

My point was that if the designer was that intelligent, why so many prototypes? Surely this signifies a poor design process ?

I also pointed out to this guy that he was standing there alone accosting folks on the street because people of a scientific persuasion do not need
to promote their ideas in this way as they are self evident, stand up for themselves and don't need to be 'pushed' onto people.

Advocates of intelligent design do the equivalent of dismantling[ for example ] a modern communications satellite and declaring it too sophisitcated and complex to have just appeared - which indeed it did not. Like everything else, satellites started out as much simpler devices. The Russian Sputnik was basically a metal sphere with some aerials sticking out of it that made a 'Beep beep' noise that could be picked up on radio. Sputnik wasn't actually of any use other than being the first prototype. So why dismantle the flagellant system found in some microscopic bacteria and declare it the work of God? It just doesn't make any sense.

My fervent hope is that the 21st Century is viewed in history as a period of enlightement where human kind shook off the obscuring shroud of religion and all the pain, suffering and atrocity that it wreaked upon the world

People who believe in intelligent design point to a modern day cell and say it could not have just appeared. It didn't and only an IDiot would say it did. It came about through millions of changes over billions of years by increasing complexity. They also say that something would not work if you take parts away so it must have been deisnged as it is now. A moon rocket would not work if you took parts away from it, but we know that it had so many earlier prototypes to form it's eventual few million parts. Every earlier prototype must have been complete to survive.

"My fervent hope is that the 21st Century is viewed in history as a period of enlightement where human kind shook off the obscuring shroud of religion and all the pain, suffering and atrocity that it wreaked upon the world"

I feel your pain. Theres no creationists where I live and when I first saw a video about it I though it was a comedy act. It was hard to believe people (in an industrialized country) actually believed this nonsense in the 21st century and harder still to convince my gf that all this creationist/intelligent design was for real and not a comedy act/put-on, it was like trying to convince her that there are scores of people that believe in santa clause and make videos about how real it is and the magic book of fairy tales prove it ("Im not kiding, these guys actually believe this, its not a comedy" -"Nooo, no way, hes fooling you, hes just pretending, come on, he cant actualy believe Noa had animals and the whole nine yards on an ark, be serious, its a comedy act")

When it comes down to magic, as in religion, believers can say anything is possible since magic is not defined in any way so can follow whatever laws the believer decides upon. So they can rationalise any impossible thing.

Originally Posted by tszy

The guy drew my attention to an article showing how more efficient an energy saving light bulb is compared to a conventional one.
The article then went on to declare that firefly light is even more efficient and thus cited this as a justification of intelligent design.

I spit up my coffee reading that. I would have told the guy that an IDer would see to it that the Sun only burns on the side that the Earth is facing.

The world is intelligent. That's what I think... I don't care to what 'entity' (god or gaia) you associate this intelligence with, but the principle of evolution is a universal problem-solving technique used by computers and even nature itself.

Evolution is part of 'Artificial Intelligence' studies (used for creating solutions in an artificial medium. Eg: teaching robot to walk). I don't know whether you want to say the world has 'artificial intelligent' or not, but it is "INTELLIGENT" (look at the computers...). Lets just say that "Biological design IS intelligent" but lets still argue if it is a proof of god or not.

What you wanted to argue is whether "god exist" or not. That's all... Biological design is actually already "intelligent" by design: but as a proof of god is an entirely different story.


P/S: if you could see how our cell and DNA is working: it is already too mechanical!... It would be too hard to dismiss them as 'normal'. It is in fact: ASTONISHING!

Originally Posted by tszy

Hi

Just to be clear - I've no time for any religious nonsense so when the other day, some guy stops me in the street and thrusts a leaflet
about intelligent design into my face I took the opportunity to respond.

The guy drew my attention to an article showing how more efficient an energy saving light bulb is compared to a conventional one.
The article then went on to declare that firefly light is even more efficient and thus cited this as a justification of intelligent design.

There is no point putting forward a reasoned scientific argument to these people as they are too far gone to be objective but I thought I'd try
to use the argument against itself by pointing out the incredible variety of species of living things can be considered [ in 'design' speak ] as prototypes.

My point was that if the designer was that intelligent, why so many prototypes? Surely this signifies a poor design process ?

I also pointed out to this guy that he was standing there alone accosting folks on the street because people of a scientific persuasion do not need
to promote their ideas in this way as they are self evident, stand up for themselves and don't need to be 'pushed' onto people.

Advocates of intelligent design do the equivalent of dismantling[ for example ] a modern communications satellite and declaring it too sophisitcated and complex to have just appeared - which indeed it did not. Like everything else, satellites started out as much simpler devices. The Russian Sputnik was basically a metal sphere with some aerials sticking out of it that made a 'Beep beep' noise that could be picked up on radio. Sputnik wasn't actually of any use other than being the first prototype. So why dismantle the flagellant system found in some microscopic bacteria and declare it the work of God? It just doesn't make any sense.

My fervent hope is that the 21st Century is viewed in history as a period of enlightement where human kind shook off the obscuring shroud of religion and all the pain, suffering and atrocity that it wreaked upon the world

You are getting there.
nokton.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"My fervent hope is that the 21st Century is viewed in history as a period of enlightement where human kind shook off the obscuring shroud of religion and all the pain, suffering and atrocity that it wreaked upon the world"

I feel your pain. Theres no creationists where I live and when I first saw a video about it I though it was a comedy act. It was hard to believe people (in an industrialized country) actually believed this nonsense in the 21st century and harder still to convince my gf that all this creationist/intelligent design was for real and not a comedy act/put-on, it was like trying to convince her that there are scores of people that believe in santa clause and make videos about how real it is and the magic book of fairy tales prove it ("Im not kiding, these guys actually believe this, its not a comedy" -"Nooo, no way, hes fooling you, hes just pretending, come on, he cant actualy believe Noa had animals and the whole nine yards on an ark, be serious, its a comedy act")

Tut tut Ice, you should know better than trash faith and ideology in such a condescending manner.
If you want to make a point to the believer, propose an alternate and convincing argument to
support your assertion. Ridicule only exacerbates the problem, and does not support a valid
point of view.
nokton.

Originally Posted by tszy

Hi

Just to be clear - I've no time for any religious nonsense so when the other day, some guy stops me in the street and thrusts a leaflet
about intelligent design into my face I took the opportunity to respond.

The guy drew my attention to an article showing how more efficient an energy saving light bulb is compared to a conventional one.
The article then went on to declare that firefly light is even more efficient and thus cited this as a justification of intelligent design.

There is no point putting forward a reasoned scientific argument to these people as they are too far gone to be objective but I thought I'd try
to use the argument against itself by pointing out the incredible variety of species of living things can be considered [ in 'design' speak ] as prototypes.

My point was that if the designer was that intelligent, why so many prototypes? Surely this signifies a poor design process ?

I also pointed out to this guy that he was standing there alone accosting folks on the street because people of a scientific persuasion do not need
to promote their ideas in this way as they are self evident, stand up for themselves and don't need to be 'pushed' onto people.

Advocates of intelligent design do the equivalent of dismantling[ for example ] a modern communications satellite and declaring it too sophisitcated and complex to have just appeared - which indeed it did not. Like everything else, satellites started out as much simpler devices. The Russian Sputnik was basically a metal sphere with some aerials sticking out of it that made a 'Beep beep' noise that could be picked up on radio. Sputnik wasn't actually of any use other than being the first prototype. So why dismantle the flagellant system found in some microscopic bacteria and declare it the work of God? It just doesn't make any sense.

My fervent hope is that the 21st Century is viewed in history as a period of enlightement where human kind shook off the obscuring shroud of religion and all the pain, suffering and atrocity that it wreaked upon the world

I think the point of intelligent design extends beyond what we do not and will not (in my opinion) understand that god was the creator of all the elements and the universe. It is those very elements we use to create things with. Without these elements we wouldn't be here to argue this very point. So if modern science in the 21st century can prove we are not really here, then I can humbly say that you have a point. By the way, I am not a religious freak.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by tszy

Hi

Just to be clear - I've no time for any religious nonsense so when the other day, some guy stops me in the street and thrusts a leaflet
about intelligent design into my face I took the opportunity to respond.

The guy drew my attention to an article showing how more efficient an energy saving light bulb is compared to a conventional one.
The article then went on to declare that firefly light is even more efficient and thus cited this as a justification of intelligent design.

There is no point putting forward a reasoned scientific argument to these people as they are too far gone to be objective but I thought I'd try
to use the argument against itself by pointing out the incredible variety of species of living things can be considered [ in 'design' speak ] as prototypes.

My point was that if the designer was that intelligent, why so many prototypes? Surely this signifies a poor design process ?

I also pointed out to this guy that he was standing there alone accosting folks on the street because people of a scientific persuasion do not need
to promote their ideas in this way as they are self evident, stand up for themselves and don't need to be 'pushed' onto people.

Advocates of intelligent design do the equivalent of dismantling[ for example ] a modern communications satellite and declaring it too sophisitcated and complex to have just appeared - which indeed it did not. Like everything else, satellites started out as much simpler devices. The Russian Sputnik was basically a metal sphere with some aerials sticking out of it that made a 'Beep beep' noise that could be picked up on radio. Sputnik wasn't actually of any use other than being the first prototype. So why dismantle the flagellant system found in some microscopic bacteria and declare it the work of God? It just doesn't make any sense.

My fervent hope is that the 21st Century is viewed in history as a period of enlightement where human kind shook off the obscuring shroud of religion and all the pain, suffering and atrocity that it wreaked upon the world

I think the point of intelligent design extends beyond what we do not and will not (in my opinion) understand that god was the creator of all the elements and the universe. It is those very elements we use to create things with. Without these elements we wouldn't be here to argue this very point. So if modern science in the 21st century can prove we are not really here, then I can humbly say that you have a point. By the way, I am not a religious freak.

Curt, never took you for one.
My point, was, and is, by what standard do we evaluate intelligence? Is it a who, or a what, or
neither. We judge and conclude appropriate according to a way of thinking.
Ok Curt, lets explore, why did it take so long for Man to emerge if an intelligence, as we understand it,
was driving evolution? Curt, only a chance asteroid that came too close, gave us a chance to evolve.
That is not intelligence, nor is it a god. But that is beside the question I ask, what is the driving force
behind evolution. There is no intelligence, just a program for life at any cost, and adaptable to any
situation, the where and why are beyond me at this present time, but I will get there.
nokton.

Dear Nokton,
All I can say in response to your comment is that I believe we can only judge what or who is "intelligent" when we compare it to thing like our own gained intelligence. Surely what you see around you should make you think that something of a higher "intelligence" needed to put these elements together to create the universe. If you cant see that, then you are denying you exist. Our intelligence as humans beings is miniscule when we compare it to the oar of intelligence that keeps equlibrium in the universe. This is my definition of intelligent design. It is neither a who or what. Maybe your definition is different to mine.

Now to address your question:

I would say that man had been pre-programmed with instincts before they gathered or learned any usable intelligence, say to light a fire for example. This would have happened at the dawn of man and is the intelligent design part. Intelligent design would have already created our DNA at that point. Now to the driving force behind evolution. Well I'm sorry to say to all of you evolutionists out there, in my opinion, we have not evolved at all so I cannot answer your question without dissapointing you. There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved apart from inter-race combinations and I guess that this is another discussion. This is not the evolution you are talking about right? As I said, I am not religious BTW.

I also do not agree with the point "at any cost" either.

I think that humans will become more intelligent when we realise how intelligent we really are.

I would say that man had been pre-programmed with instincts before they gathered or learned any usable intelligence, say to light a fire for example. This would have happened at the dawn of man and is the intelligent design part. Intelligent design would have already created our DNA at that point.

The pure irony is the "good" parts in the bible and most others religions scripture work to directly counter the very instincts we seem to have a predisposition to turn to action--namely applying what ever inborn altruistic genes to take care of those genetically related (i.e., family) and extend that "goodness," beyond genetics benefit. By that measure we were designed for selfish evil.

--

There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved apart from inter-race combinations and I guess that this is another discussion.

Yes it is...there's a current thread about it in the biology forum, some of which pulls up studies that show human evolution over the past 20,000 years has been at an extraordinarily fast rate.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

I am not religious BTW.

I will take your word for it. Thank you also for your able demonstration that you are certainly not scientific.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Surely what you see around you should make you think that something of a higher "intelligence" needed to put these elements together to create the universe.

What is it that you find in the character of the universe requires this higher "intelligence". We have some speculations, I hesitate to call them hypotheses, as to how the universe may have formed. None of those speculations require a higher intelligence. What are you seeing that the authors of those speculations are missing?

Originally Posted by Curtologic

If you cant see that, then you are denying you exist.

So what created the higher intelligence that created the universe?

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Our intelligence as humans beings is miniscule when we compare it to the oar of intelligence that keeps equlibrium in the universe. This is my definition of intelligent design. It is neither a who or what. Maybe your definition is different to mine.

The oar that keeps universal equilibrium appears to be made up of some very simple components: four forces and a small number of constants. The rest follows naturally. No intelligence necessary - indeed the very reverse of what I, and most people, would mean by intelligence. If I understand you correctly you are defining intelligence as the robotic application of a hanful of forces, laws and constants. Please clarify if I have it wrong. (And in passing, if it is neither a who or a what, then what is it?)

Originally Posted by Curtologic

I would say that man had been pre-programmed with instincts before they gathered or learned any usable intelligence, say to light a fire for example. .

This clearly implies you do not think intelligence has a genetic component. Would you clarify please.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Now to the driving force behind evolution. Well I'm sorry to say to all of you evolutionists out there, in my opinion, we have not evolved at all so I cannot answer your question without dissapointing you. There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved apart from inter-race combinations and I guess that this is another discussion.

Forget about humans for a moment and primates in general. What about evolution for the rest of the life kingdoms? Do you accept its reality or not?

And also in passing - I won't be bothered if you ignore this question - why is it that anti-evolutionists have this fixation on humans? As if we were somehow important? What's going on with that?

Originally Posted by Curtologic

There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved

As you obviously know nothing about this subject, this might be a good place to start: Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution (if you are interested in learning).

As I said, I am not religious BTW.

And yet you believe man was created by some higher intelligence and deny the enormous amounts of evidence for evolution. If it walks like a creationist and quacks like a creationist...

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I would say that man had been pre-programmed with instincts before they gathered or learned any usable intelligence, say to light a fire for example. This would have happened at the dawn of man and is the intelligent design part. Intelligent design would have already created our DNA at that point.

The pure irony is the "good" parts in the bible and most others religions scripture work to directly counter the very instincts we seem to have a predisposition to turn to action--namely applying what ever inborn altruistic genes to take care of those genetically related (i.e., family) and extend that "goodness," beyond genetics benefit. By that measure we were designed for selfish evil.
--
The part about "designed for selfish evil" is the part I don't agree with. With everything else, you've made your point. However, are you saying humans are like viruses?

There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved apart from inter-race combinations and I guess that this is another discussion.

Yes it is...there's a current thread about it in the biology forum, some of which pulls up studies that show human evolution over the past 20,000 years has been at an extraordinarily fast rate.

Maybe you've been misled! Just because we have changed skin colour and grow less hair does and things like that do not mean that we have evolved in my books. I'm talking about evolving from fish - those sort of evolutional changes where the genes or DNA sequence would have had to change. When we as humans change our gene sequence, then I will believe that we've evolved. So far there has been no proof. The missing link is what I'm talking about!

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Curtologic

I am not religious BTW.

I will take your word for it. Thank you also for your able demonstration that you are certainly not scientific.

I'm not sure how to take this response but I will take it as a complement. However, I am very scientific from an observation point of view.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Surely what you see around you should make you think that something of a higher "intelligence" needed to put these elements together to create the universe.

What is it that you find in the character of the universe requires this higher "intelligence". We have some speculations, I hesitate to call them hypotheses, as to how the universe may have formed. None of those speculations require a higher intelligence. What are you seeing that the authors of those speculations are missing?

Maybe we each have a different meaning of intelligence. Please define yours?

Originally Posted by Curtologic

If you cant see that, then you are denying you exist.

So what created the higher intelligence that created the universe?

This is not for us to answer because we will never know in our life time. We just have to have faith. The creator is the alpha and the omega. The more you think about it, the more you will go crazy!!

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Our intelligence as humans beings is miniscule when we compare it to the oar of intelligence that keeps equlibrium in the universe. This is my definition of intelligent design. It is neither a who or what.

Maybe your definition is different to mine.

The oar that keeps universal equilibrium appears to be made up of some very simple components: four forces and a small number of constants. The rest follows naturally. No intelligence necessary - indeed the very reverse of what I, and most people, would mean by intelligence. If I understand you correctly you are defining intelligence as the robotic application of a hanful of forces, laws and constants. Please clarify if I have it wrong. (And in passing, if it is neither a who or a what, then what is it?)

I wish I could tell you but the topic of discussion is intelligent design....

Originally Posted by Curtologic

I would say that man had been pre-programmed with instincts before they gathered or learned any usable intelligence, say to light a fire for example. .

This clearly implies you do not think intelligence has a genetic component. Would you clarify please.

I believe that genetics plays a factor in as far as how large each humans' brain is and the dietry opportunities and nurture that the human is exposed to during their developing years. So in short, genetics plays some part. All humans will still have their insticts (instincts being part of the intelligent design part) even if they do not turn out to be intelligent individuals.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Now to the driving force behind evolution. Well I'm sorry to say to all of you evolutionists out there, in my opinion, we have not evolved at all so I cannot answer your question without dissapointing you. There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved apart from inter-race combinations and I guess that this is another discussion.

Forget about humans for a moment and primates in general. What about evolution for the rest of the life kingdoms? Do you accept its reality or not?

Once again, the rest of the species on the earth would have had to go through a genetic change. This is not possible without genetic mutation or intelligent design. Genetic mutation is not evolution.

And also in passing - I won't be bothered if you ignore this question - why is it that anti-evolutionists have this fixation on humans? As if we were somehow important? What's going on with that?

I totally agree. Who can really say if other species on the planet are thinking about the same thing!

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Maybe you've been misled! Just because we have changed skin colour and grow less hair does and things like that do not mean that we have evolved in my books. I'm talking about evolving from fish - those sort of evolutional changes where the genes or DNA sequence would have had to changed. When we as humans change our gene sequence, then I will believe that we've evolved. So far there has been no proof. The missing link is what I'm talking about!

Maybe you don't understand what evolution is, so just make up your ideas as you go along, instead of bothering to understand the science involved.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved

As you obviously know nothing about this subject, this might be a good place to start: Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution (if you are interested in learning).

As I said, I am not religious BTW.

And yet you believe man was created by some higher intelligence and deny the enormous amounts of evidence for evolution. If it walks like a creationist and quacks like a creationist...

.......And if it walks like an evolutionist it quacks like an evolutionist. Even if evolution is true (which I gathered you know I'm not a believer), what evolution cannot explain is what or who was the intelligent designer that create it (evolution)? It still comes down to the creator. I dont have to be religious to disbelieve evolution.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Maybe you've been misled! Just because we have changed skin colour and grow less hair does and things like that do not mean that we have evolved in my books. I'm talking about evolving from fish - those sort of evolutional changes where the genes or DNA sequence would have had to changed. When we as humans change our gene sequence, then I will believe that we've evolved. So far there has been no proof. The missing link is what I'm talking about!

Maybe you don't understand what evolution is, so just make up your ideas as you go along, instead of bothering to understand the science involved.

Actually, I do understand what evolution is. All I am expressing is my idea on the subject but this is a discussion on intellgent design not evolution. Please tell me from my responses where I have apparently gone wrong???

I think you understand a very basic concept of some facets of Evolution, but do not have a good grasp beyond that.

It is ironic indeed however, I don't believe that when we are are just born that our instincts tell us to become selfish, bad etc. If this were the case, we would have destroyed our own existance before we reach our teens. Most of us learn to become civilised in human society. By the time we are adults, for the few who have not been taught the ethical way to survive rely healvily on their insticts to make decisions for them. These actions translate to rash and non though out actions that reveal themselves as evil and selfish deeds. These people do not know any better and it is not their fault. It comes from generations before them - the level of the the intelligence their parents and social groups gained during their lives. Unfortunately, due to the complex lives we live in nowadays, it has made it worse for most of us so we rely more and more on our survival insticts to get by in the world. Intelligent design is written in the instincts we all have and they are perfect.

Fair enough, it's your say but this is a discussion on intelligent design isn't it?

Intelligence apparently is not needed or is not wanted since it involves being responsible for your actions. People are aware of what they are doing to destroy our environment that ultimately supports us and yet they do nothing about preventing their actions so intelligence is something we may evolve to have but by then it will be too late.

The percentage of the population today who are aware of the damage we are causing is far higher than fifty years ago.
The number of organisations attempting to limit or even reverse that damage is greater than it was fifty years ago.
The recognition by governments, expressed by legislation is substantially better than it was fifty years ago.

Take the ape out of the jungle and he spends a few millenia being confused.
Put him in a toyshop of technology and he - pun warning - goes ape.
Eventually, later than we would like, but not too late, the wise ape takes over.

Keep smilling.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

.......And if it walks like an evolutionist it quacks like an evolutionist.

Apart from the fact "evolutionist" doesn't mean anything, I am not denying the science of evolution so that is not really a meaningful comparison.

Even if evolution is true (which I gathered you know I'm not a believer)

It is trivially true. Drug resistant bacteria, dog breeds, sickle cell disease, and on, and on, and on ..... Unless you mean something different by the word "evolution"?

There could be some argument about details of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

, what evolution cannot explain is what or who was the intelligent designer that create it (evolution)? It still comes down to the creator.

I don't have a problem with someone choosing to believe that the system of evolution was created. I can't see any particular reason to believe that, but whatever makes you happy. I do have a bit of a problem with the dishonesty of someone claiming not to be religious when they obviously are.

I dont have to be religious to disbelieve evolution.

No, you just have to ignore the evidence all around you.

I don't have a problem with the word "evolution" and I am not religious. What I do have a problem with is the details that explains every aspect of life and its rigid position that nothing directs itself or that no level of life has a goal or purpose.

Originally Posted by Barbi

I don't have a problem with the word "evolution" and I am not religious. What I do have a problem with is the details that explains every aspect of life and its rigid position that nothing directs itself

I'm not sure what you mean by "directs itself". I don't think evolution says anything about free will, for example.

or that no level of life has a goal or purpose.

Evolution doesn't say there is a goal or a purpose (and specifically doesn't need one). But if people believe there is a purpose to life then that doesn't (necessarily) conflict with evolution.

Sounds like this is becoming a discussion around Evolution Vs Creation. This was not the intent right? This is a discussion on Intelligent Design.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

.......And if it walks like an evolutionist it quacks like an evolutionist.

Apart from the fact "evolutionist" doesn't mean anything, I am not denying the science of evolution so that is not really a meaningful comparison.

Even if evolution is true (which I gathered you know I'm not a believer)

It is trivially true. Drug resistant bacteria, dog breeds, sickle cell disease, and on, and on, and on ..... Unless you mean something different by the word "evolution"?

No actually, I'm talking about humans evolving from fish and not the latter. This is the crux of the term evolution. Drug resistant bacteria is not linked to evolution.

There could be some argument about details of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

, what evolution cannot explain is what or who was the intelligent designer that create it (evolution)? It still comes down to the creator.

I don't have a problem with someone choosing to believe that the system of evolution was created. I can't see any particular reason to believe that, but whatever makes you happy. I do have a bit of a problem with the dishonesty of someone claiming not to be religious when they obviously are.

I dont have to be religious to disbelieve evolution.

And.... I have not chosen to join these dicussions to preach to evolutionists either! Does it make me religious if I believe in god?

I can assure you Strange, that I am completely honest and I am not religious. As I said, I am a scientific observer (with a scientific background).

No, you just have to ignore the evidence all around you.

I sincerely don't ignore the evidence around me but there are more argurments (in my opinion) that puts evolution to shame over the philosphy of creation. Intelligent design far outweights the odds of it being true over evolution. As I said, even if evolution is true, the question is who created it? Answer Intelligent design.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Barbi

I don't have a problem with the word "evolution" and I am not religious. What I do have a problem with is the details that explains every aspect of life and its rigid position that nothing directs itself

I'm not sure what you mean by "directs itself". I don't think evolution says anything about free will, for example.

or that no level of life has a goal or purpose.

Evolution doesn't say there is a goal or a purpose (and specifically doesn't need one). But if people believe there is a purpose to life then that doesn't (necessarily) conflict with evolution.

I think that this is a mute point.

Please provide a list of examples where intelligent design outweighs evolution for explanatory power so we can discuss the merits of each case.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Please provide a list of examples where intelligent design outweighs evolution for explanatory power so we can discuss the merits of each case.

Life in general,
Forces in nature,
The complexity of the DNA,
Our instincts,
How we dream and think.

Everything around you.

Now ask yourself how evolution explains these over intelligent design?

Over 4 Billion years of continual change and selective pressures.

Now lest see if you can actually give any concrete examples that are a little less vague the "everything prove me wrong". There have to be specifics if you have given it any in depth thought.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

No actually, I'm talking about humans evolving from fish and not the latter. This is the crux of the term evolution. Drug resistant bacteria is not linked to evolution.

No, that is evolution. It sounds like you want to separate out the evolution of humans from all other forms of evolution? What do you have to say about all the other hominid species in the fossil record?

Does it make me religious if I believe in god?

How can it not? That is what "religion" means. Do you have your own definition of the word "religious" as well?

As I said, even if evolution is true, the question is who created it? Answer Intelligent design.

You are free to believe that if it makes you happy (it just seems unnecessary).

Curtlogic, you claim that the development of drug resitant bacteria is not linked to evolution.
Please explain what led you to this conclusion.

You also say:
No actually, I'm talking about humans evolving from fish and not the latter. This is the crux of the term evolution.
This demonstrates that you have little understanding of evolution. Your anthropocentric view that evolution is to do with humans as the central concern is quaint, but misguided. One of the factors that changed my worldview from one where I accepted evolution on the basis of authority to one where I accepted it on the basis of evidence was through the study of fossil lineages such as ammonites, trilobites and graptolites. In fact we found vertebrates in general rather dull and boring.

You also ask:
Does it make me religious if I believe in God?
It does according to most definitions I am familiar with. Religious does not automatically mean that you are an adherent of a recognised religion. For exampe, the online Free Dictionary's first definition is : Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

I shall be interested to see what evidence you bring to bear to support your contention that intelligent design offers a better explantion for the fact of evolution than the Modern Synthesis. Intelligent Design has a rather poor record in this regard, judged both by 99.99% of scientists and by the American Judicial system.

The argument that I have seen presented is generally of the form "evolution cannot be true for these reasons, therefore Intelligent Design must be true". I should be interested to hear how you justify this logical fallacy, wherein a false dichotomy is applied. i.e. Even if you were to disprove evolution you have not proved intelligent design.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Over 4 Billion years of continual change and selective pressures.

Now lest see if you can actually give any concrete examples that are a little less vague the "everything prove me wrong". There have to be specifics if you have given it any in depth thought.

I don't see why the examples I've given aren't real. Intelligent design goes beyond the biological realm.


Ok, I accept that 4 billion years is a long time and perhaps there have been continual change and selective pressures. Let's break the two points up.

Continual change:

An example of this would be climate right? In the time that humans (Homo Sapiens for example) appeared on the planet, how can evolution demonstrate that our DNA in our genes have changed in that time till now? We are now looking at about the last 50,000 years only. If evolution cannot answer this question then how can it answer it for the remaining 3.95 billion years?

Selective pressures:

I think that you may be referring to how species selected their mate. How can evolution show that one mate was better over another without considering the instincts of that species. The instincts are part of what evolution cannot explain. Intelligent design can though by suggesting that each species searches it own to reproduce with and only its own. I fail to see the mating between fish and land bearing creatures. This can only be left up to the imagination.

You obviously have thought about the topic but it sounds like you need more evidence of intelligent design. All I can tell you is to look around you and there are endless examples. Just think about it. I am even telling you that it is possible that evolution is intelligent design provided there was better evidence to support the claims.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

No actually, I'm talking about humans evolving from fish and not the latter. This is the crux of the term evolution. Drug resistant bacteria is not linked to evolution.

No, that is evolution. It sounds like you want to separate out the evolution of humans from all other forms of evolution? What do you have to say about all the other hominid species in the fossil record?

So are you saying that the evolutionary process is influenced by humans? Are you insinuating that genetic mutation by humans is evolution, leaving aside the drug resistant bacteria?

Does it make me religious if I believe in god?

How can it not? That is what "religion" means. Do you have your own definition of the word "religious" as well?

Let me clarify, I believe that no one can explain why we are here in the universe and it is not our prerogative to question it. That's as far as I will go.

As I said, even if evolution is true, the question is who created it? Answer Intelligent design.

You are free to believe that if it makes you happy (it just seems unnecessary).

And you are free to beleive in what makes you happy too!

Originally Posted by John Galt

Curtlogic, you claim that the development of drug resitant bacteria is not linked to evolution.
Please explain what led you to this conclusion.

You also say:
No actually, I'm talking about humans evolving from fish and not the latter. This is the crux of the term evolution.
This demonstrates that you have little understanding of evolution. Your anthropocentric view that evolution is to do with humans as the central concern is quaint, but misguided. One of the factors that changed my worldview from one where I accepted evolution on the basis of authority to one where I accepted it on the basis of evidence was through the study of fossil lineages such as ammonites, trilobites and graptolites. In fact we found vertebrates in general rather dull and boring.

You also ask:
Does it make me religious if I believe in God?
It does according to most definitions I am familiar with. Religious does not automatically mean that you are an adherent of a recognised religion. For exampe, the online Free Dictionary's first definition is : Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

I shall be interested to see what evidence you bring to bear to support your contention that intelligent design offers a better explantion for the fact of evolution than the Modern Synthesis. Intelligent Design has a rather poor record in this regard, judged both by 99.99% of scientists and by the American Judicial system.

The argument that I have seen presented is generally of the form "evolution cannot be true for these reasons, therefore Intelligent Design must be true". I should be interested to hear how you justify this logical fallacy, wherein a false dichotomy is applied. i.e. Even if you were to disprove evolution you have not proved intelligent design.

Dear John,

I appreciate that you have accepted evolution as the basis of explaination after you have studied and seen many fossils. I find them extremely facinating myself also and would understand why it would be an interesting field of study. However, I have not proven that evolution is false and Intelligent design is true. All I'm saying is that there is insufficient proof to support it. As a scientific observer and logical reasoner, I see that arguements of this type always dispute the possibility of creation and with all the opposers of Intelligent Design come the disbelievers of creation. I believe you and many others have not seen the difference between creation and Intelligent Design. Creation may be hard to phathom while Intelligent design is just a logical direction after creation.

You must realise though that Intelligent Design goes beyond the biological realm. I think that 99.9% of all scientists and the American Judicial system may not have comprehended this.

Originally Posted by curtologic

Life in general,
Forces in nature,
The complexity of the DNA,
Our instincts,
How we dream and think.

Everything around you.

Now ask yourself how evolution explains these over intelligent design?

As intelligent design has no explanation for any of that stuff at all - none of it appears to be designed, and there seems to be no reason an intelligent designer would cobble up that sort of baroque and purposeless complexity - and evolutionary theory does offer reasonable and even compelling explanations for the features and aspects of quite a bit of it ( the DNA, the "everything around you", etc) you seem to be arguing at cross purposes with yourself there.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by curtologic

Life in general,
Forces in nature,
The complexity of the DNA,
Our instincts,
How we dream and think.

Everything around you.

Now ask yourself how evolution explains these over intelligent design?

As intelligent design has no explanation for any of that stuff at all - none of it appears to be designed, and there seems to be no reason an intelligent designer would cobble up that sort of baroque and purposeless complexity - and evolutionary theory does offer reasonable and even compelling explanations for the features and aspects of quite a bit of it ( the DNA, the "everything around you", etc) you seem to be arguing at cross purposes with yourself there.

Without disrespect, it sound like you have the capabilty of designing a better system than the one around you. Why don't you propose it to the creator?

Originally Posted by curtologic

Without disrespect, it sound like you have the capabilty of designing a better system than the one around you

I have no competence in designing things so that they look evolved and homeostatic and so forth, instead of looking designed.

And since no design is evident, I have no idea what you could mean by a "better" system - what are your criteria for "better" when there is no purpose, no aspect of design, visible?

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by curtologic

Life in general,
Forces in nature,
The complexity of the DNA,
Our instincts,
How we dream and think.

Everything around you.

Now ask yourself how evolution explains these over intelligent design?

As intelligent design has no explanation for any of that stuff at all - none of it appears to be designed, and there seems to be no reason an intelligent designer would cobble up that sort of baroque and purposeless complexity - and evolutionary theory does offer reasonable and even compelling explanations for the features and aspects of quite a bit of it ( the DNA, the "everything around you", etc) you seem to be arguing at cross purposes with yourself there.

Iceaura, can I ask you something? Do you have any purpose to your existance? If you do then you will appreciate that the there is a purpose for the intelligent design that you are. If not then you appear to be short sighted!

We become more intelligent when we realise how intelligent we really are.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by curtologic

Without disrespect, it sound like you have the capabilty of designing a better system than the one around you

I have no competence in designing things so that they look evolved and homeostatic and so forth, instead of looking designed.

And since no design is evident, I have no idea what you could mean by a "better" system - what are your criteria for "better" when there is no purpose, no aspect of design, visible?

You obviously made the point that all things around us are purposeless. I on the other hand have a lot to do with designing things and I appreciate that the design capability we have as humans is so miniscule when compared to the thing in nature.

Originally Posted by curtologic

You obviously made the point that all things around us are purposeless.

No. I obviously made the point that the "system around me" had no evident purpose.

And I requested of you, since you claim to be able to discern purpose in this "system around", your criteria for "better" design of it.

Originally Posted by curtologic

Iceaura, can I ask you something?

Try answering, first.

Originally Posted by tszy

Hi
There is no point putting forward a reasoned scientific argument to these people as they are too far gone to be objective but I thought I'd try
to use the argument against itself by pointing out the incredible variety of species of living things can be considered [ in 'design' speak ] as prototypes.

My point was that if the designer was that intelligent, why so many prototypes? Surely this signifies a poor design process ?

Prototypes? Couldn't it be a designer who appreciates variety and diversity? Seem to me a single-minded designer exhibits less intelligence than One who is imaginative, artistic, creative and full of limitless possibilities.

Originally Posted by tszy

I also pointed out to this guy that he was standing there alone accosting folks on the street because people of a scientific persuasion do not need
to promote their ideas in this way as they are self evident, stand up for themselves and don't need to be 'pushed' onto people.

Then, you must not be including the scientists who got caught red-handed by their own emails; exchanging ideas on how to further promote and trick people into believing their claims of a bogus "man-made" global warming crisis. No, of course scientists have never "pushed" anything onto people...unless they could use it to manipulate ignorant masses.

Originally Posted by tszy

Advocates of intelligent design do the equivalent of dismantling[ for example ] a modern communications satellite and declaring it too sophisitcated and complex to have just appeared - which indeed it did not. Like everything else, satellites started out as much simpler devices. The Russian Sputnik was basically a metal sphere with some aerials sticking out of it that made a 'Beep beep' noise that could be picked up on radio. Sputnik wasn't actually of any use other than being the first prototype. So why dismantle the flagellant system found in some microscopic bacteria and declare it the work of God? It just doesn't make any sense.

The rhetorical question doesn't make sense. Why do scientists dismantle or dissect anything? Could it be to learn some things about it? Even its origin?

Originally Posted by Cyberia

When it comes down to magic, as in religion, believers can say anything is possible since magic is not defined in any way so can follow whatever laws the believer decides upon. So they can rationalise any impossible thing.

But, science still has not proven the "thing" is impossible. Go figure.

Although some lay people might proffer such an argument, scientists who support intelligent design do not say that. Let's be fair.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

People who believe in intelligent design point to a modern day cell and say it could not have just appeared. It didn't and only an IDiot would say it did. It came about through millions of changes over billions of years by increasing complexity. They also say that something would not work if you take parts away so it must have been deisnged as it is now. A moon rocket would not work if you took parts away from it, but we know that it had so many earlier prototypes to form it's eventual few million parts. Every earlier prototype must have been complete to survive.

Originally Posted by John Galt

What is it that you find in the character of the universe requires this higher "intelligence". We have some speculations, I hesitate to call them hypotheses, as to how the universe may have formed. None of those speculations require a higher intelligence. What are you seeing that the authors of those speculations are missing?

Speculations? May have formed? Perhaps the authors of those speculations are missing...



wait for it...



FACT!

Originally Posted by voi

Then, you must not be including the scientists who got caught red-handed by their own emails; exchanging ideas on how to further promote and trick people into believing their claims of a bogus "man-made" global warming crisis

That never happened.

Although some lay people might proffer such an argument, scientists who support intelligent design

There are very few of them, and of those few some say pretty silly things - including asserting "irreducible complexity" and the like, as evidence of design.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Over 4 Billion years of continual change and selective pressures.

Now lest see if you can actually give any concrete examples that are a little less vague the "everything prove me wrong". There have to be specifics if you have given it any in depth thought.

I don't see why the examples I've given aren't real. Intelligent design goes beyond the biological realm.


Ok, I accept that 4 billion years is a long time and perhaps there have been continual change and selective pressures. Let's break the two points up.

Continual change:

An example of this would be climate right? In the time that humans (Homo Sapiens for example) appeared on the planet, how can evolution demonstrate that our DNA in our genes have changed in that time till now? We are now looking at about the last 50,000 years only. If evolution cannot answer this question then how can it answer it for the remaining 3.95 billion years?

Selective pressures:

I think that you may be referring to how species selected their mate. How can evolution show that one mate was better over another without considering the instincts of that species. The instincts are part of what evolution cannot explain. Intelligent design can though by suggesting that each species searches it own to reproduce with and only its own. I fail to see the mating between fish and land bearing creatures. This can only be left up to the imagination.

You obviously have thought about the topic but it sounds like you need more evidence of intelligent design. All I can tell you is to look around you and there are endless examples. Just think about it. I am even telling you that it is possible that evolution is intelligent design provided there was better evidence to support the claims.

ID beyond life is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Continual chage was a reference to life continually changing as a result of numerous internal and external factors. Actually if we were to look at humans it would be appropriate to look at the entire record of the human line from its divergence with chimps a little over ~4 million years ago. The homonid tree is full of off shoot genera and species. DNA comparision with chimps shows a 2% shift from them, morphology shows trend towards upright posture and tool use.

Selective pressures is everything from mate selection to food source availability to seasonality changes. You need to stop looking at this form a very humancentric point of view.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

I don't see why the examples I've given aren't real.

They may be real, but they lacked any detail. Consequently the only possible refutation is 'well, actually, that turns out not to be true'. Provide detailed examples of biological features where you claim their existence is better explained by Intelligent Design than by Evolution. You know, like the classic one, debunked so often, about the evolution of the eye. Provide a good example that cannot be debunked.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Continual change:
An example of this would be climate right? In the time that humans (Homo Sapiens for example) appeared on the planet, how can evolution demonstrate that our DNA in our genes have changed in that time till now?

Let me tell you what troubles me about your position: it is founded on ignorance. Just do a google search on lactose tolerance and if you have difficutly understanding how the emergence of lactose tolerance is a clear demonstration of exactly what you are asking for, just ask.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Selective pressures:

I think that you may be referring to how species selected their mate.

Wow! Triple wow!!! Your ignorance is truly deep. What is the full name of Darwin's theory? It isn't Darwin's Theory of Evolution, it is Darwin's Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The selection paleoichnium referred to is natural selection: the tendency of those organisms having characteristics more apt for their environment to succesfully reproduce and thus promote their positive genetic characteristics. It is this amazingly powerful process that will favour some variations thrown up by mutations, or pre-existing in a population, and 'reject' others.

How can evolution show that one mate was better over another without considering the instincts of that species.

Evolution does not show this. You are arguing against a strawman, but I'll pretend it has validity. If a specific instinct of a species is such as to favour survival and reproduction in a particular environment then those members of the population who have the genes that engender this instinct, or make it especially powerful will be more succesful at reproduction and the genes (and instinct) will spread in the population.

However, I have not proven that evolution is false and Intelligent design is true. All I'm saying is that there is insufficient proof to support it.

There is abundant evidence for evolution in palaeontology, embryology and genetics. Provide, in detail, a single piece of evidence for Intelligent Design. Hand waving and word salad are not sufficient.

I see that arguements of this type always dispute the possibility of creation and with all the opposers of Intelligent Design come the disbelievers of creation.

I have not said that I dispute the possibility of creation. I don't. Creation and evolution are two completely separate things. The universe could have been created by something, we'll call it God for convenience, then left to run according to its laws and constants. Whether or not that is what happened there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.

While we are at it, I do not dispute the possibility of Intelligent Design. I just say that I see no compelling evidence in support of it, and ask again, please provide some, in detail, without the waffle.

I believe you and many others have not seen the difference between creation and Intelligent Design.

I am fully aware of the distinction, as I trust my earlier remarks demonstrate. They are wholly separate. The existence of one does not necessitate the existence of the other. End of story.

Without disrespect, it sound like you have the capabilty of designing a better system than the one around you.

Engineers are now using natural selection algorithms to produce superior mechanical designs. Think about that: the process of natural selection produces better designs, faster than can be achieved by intelligence. For example.

Originally Posted by votinforu

Speculations? May have formed? Perhaps the authors of those speculations are missing...

wait for it...

FACT!

No. Perhaps they are honest enought to recognise that until we have gathered more observations all we can do is speculate. My central point, however, remains - in none of those speculative proposals for the origin of the universe is a God required.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by John Galt

Curtlogic, you claim that the development of drug resitant bacteria is not linked to evolution.
Please explain what led you to this conclusion.

You also say:
No actually, I'm talking about humans evolving from fish and not the latter. This is the crux of the term evolution.
This demonstrates that you have little understanding of evolution. Your anthropocentric view that evolution is to do with humans as the central concern is quaint, but misguided. One of the factors that changed my worldview from one where I accepted evolution on the basis of authority to one where I accepted it on the basis of evidence was through the study of fossil lineages such as ammonites, trilobites and graptolites. In fact we found vertebrates in general rather dull and boring.

You also ask:
Does it make me religious if I believe in God?
It does according to most definitions I am familiar with. Religious does not automatically mean that you are an adherent of a recognised religion. For exampe, the online Free Dictionary's first definition is : Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

I shall be interested to see what evidence you bring to bear to support your contention that intelligent design offers a better explantion for the fact of evolution than the Modern Synthesis. Intelligent Design has a rather poor record in this regard, judged both by 99.99% of scientists and by the American Judicial system.

The argument that I have seen presented is generally of the form "evolution cannot be true for these reasons, therefore Intelligent Design must be true". I should be interested to hear how you justify this logical fallacy, wherein a false dichotomy is applied. i.e. Even if you were to disprove evolution you have not proved intelligent design.

Dear John,

I appreciate that you have accepted evolution as the basis of explaination after you have studied and seen many fossils. I find them extremely facinating myself also and would understand why it would be an interesting field of study. However, I have not proven that evolution is false and Intelligent design is true. All I'm saying is that there is insufficient proof to support it. As a scientific observer and logical reasoner, I see that arguements of this type always dispute the possibility of creation and with all the opposers of Intelligent Design come the disbelievers of creation. I believe you and many others have not seen the difference between creation and Intelligent Design. Creation may be hard to phathom while Intelligent design is just a logical direction after creation.

You must realise though that Intelligent Design goes beyond the biological realm. I think that 99.9% of all scientists and the American Judicial system may not have comprehended this.

Good observation, Curt.
It almost appears those who dispute intelligent design do so more as a knee jerk reaction based on a fear of being perceived less than scientific.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by voi

Then, you must not be including the scientists who got caught red-handed by their own emails; exchanging ideas on how to further promote and trick people into believing their claims of a bogus "man-made" global warming crisis

That never happened.

Although some lay people might proffer such an argument, scientists who support intelligent design

There are very few of them, and of those few some say pretty silly things - including asserting "irreducible complexity" and the like, as evidence of design.

It did happen. The emails were published online. It was a huge story.

Very few? There are 32,000 scientists who openly dispute "man-made" global warming, and probably a lot more who are afraid to say what they know since those with an agenda attempt to discredit the brave ones by dismissing them as crackpots.

Seems to me in order for science to work, it must be based on facts, not speculation. Honesty at its essence would mean admitting that speculation clearly announces ya aint got nuthin'!

Originally Posted by votinforu

Seems to me in order for science to work, it must be based on facts, not speculation. Honesty at its essence would mean admitting that speculation clearly announces ya aint got nuthin'!

My word, yet another person who does not have the faintest idea of how science works it seems. What "facts" do you possess to support your position then? John Galt has some good questions for Curtologic. I suggest you take a look at them as well.

[QUOTE=Curtologic;294377]

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

No actually, I'm talking about humans evolving from fish and not the latter. This is the crux of the term evolution. Drug resistant bacteria is not linked to evolution.

No, that is evolution. It sounds like you want to separate out the evolution of humans from all other forms of evolution? What do you have to say about all the other hominid species in the fossil record?

So are you saying that the evolutionary process is influenced by humans? Are you insinuating that genetic mutation by humans is evolution, leaving aside the drug resistant bacteria?

No. I was just trying to understand your position; where you draw the line. You seem to agree that evolution happens at the level of things like drug resistance in bacteria but not in the development of humans. We have seen many other examples of evolution, including the development of new species, both in the wild and the lab. Plus we have a history of (incomplete) sequences of species apparently descended, one from another, in the fossil record.

We see that species are not just a good fit for their environment (as if they had been design for it) but that they adapt to their environment.

So is it just humans you think were created (or designed, if you prefer) or is there some other level of evolution you would draw the line at?

And if (modern) humans were created/designed as you say, what does that mean for the record of different humanoid species in the past? Did they evolve or were they created and then discarded?

OK. You can say that this whole process of heritable characteristics and natural selection was "designed" in order to allow evolution to take place. That isn't really a scientific position though because it can never be falsified.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Curtologic

I don't see why the examples I've given aren't real.

They may be real, but they lacked any detail. Consequently the only possible refutation is 'well, actually, that turns out not to be true'. Provide detailed examples of biological features where you claim their existence is better explained by Intelligent Design than by Evolution. You know, like the classic one, debunked so often, about the evolution of the eye. Provide a good example that cannot be debunked.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Continual change:
An example of this would be climate right? In the time that humans (Homo Sapiens for example) appeared on the planet, how can evolution demonstrate that our DNA in our genes have changed in that time till now?

Let me tell you what troubles me about your position: it is founded on ignorance. Just do a google search on lactose tolerance and if you have difficutly understanding how the emergence of lactose tolerance is a clear demonstration of exactly what you are asking for, just ask.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Selective pressures:

I think that you may be referring to how species selected their mate.

Wow! Triple wow!!! Your ignorance is truly deep. What is the full name of Darwin's theory? It isn't Darwin's Theory of Evolution, it is Darwin's Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The selection paleoichnium referred to is natural selection: the tendency of those organisms having characteristics more apt for their environment to succesfully reproduce and thus promote their positive genetic characteristics. It is this amazingly powerful process that will favour some variations thrown up by mutations, or pre-existing in a population, and 'reject' others.

How can evolution show that one mate was better over another without considering the instincts of that species.

Evolution does not show this. You are arguing against a strawman, but I'll pretend it has validity. If a specific instinct of a species is such as to favour survival and reproduction in a particular environment then those members of the population who have the genes that engender this instinct, or make it especially powerful will be more succesful at reproduction and the genes (and instinct) will spread in the population.

However, I have not proven that evolution is false and Intelligent design is true. All I'm saying is that there is insufficient proof to support it.

This is just part of the discussion.

There is abundant evidence for evolution in palaeontology, embryology and genetics. Provide, in detail, a single piece of evidence for Intelligent Design. Hand waving and word salad are not sufficient.

This may be so but it is built up from a lot of speculation.

I see that arguements of this type always dispute the possibility of creation and with all the opposers of Intelligent Design come the disbelievers of creation.

I have not said that I dispute the possibility of creation. I don't. Creation and evolution are two completely separate things. The universe could have been created by something, we'll call it God for convenience, then left to run according to its laws and constants. Whether or not that is what happened there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.

I noticed the words "could have been created". Are you a convert?

While we are at it, I do not dispute the possibility of Intelligent Design. I just say that I see no compelling evidence in support of it, and ask again, please provide some, in detail, without the waffle. There is no waffle here.

I believe you and many others have not seen the difference between creation and Intelligent Design.

I am fully aware of the distinction, as I trust my earlier remarks demonstrate. They are wholly separate. The existence of one does not necessitate the existence of the other. End of story.
Actually, this is just the beginning of the discussion. You obviously have identified there is more to intelligent design than meets the eye. Tell your peers about it!. I'll support you. Maybe you are beginning to see the light.

Without disrespect, it sound like you have the capabilty of designing a better system than the one around you.

Engineers are now using natural selection algorithms to produce superior mechanical designs. Think about that: the process of natural selection produces better designs, faster than can be achieved by intelligence. For example.

Actually you are very wrong here. All software algorithms are written using logical processes. No software designer in the world can program emotions (and never will) otherwise we would already have artificial intelligence. The only part of the computer that posseses Intelligent Design are the atoms which make up the parts and some of the forces in nature.

Originally Posted by votinforu

Speculations? May have formed? Perhaps the authors of those speculations are missing...

wait for it...

FACT!

No. Perhaps they are honest enought to recognise that until we have gathered more observations all we can do is speculate. My central point, however, remains - in none of those speculative proposals for the origin of the universe is a God required.

You also have obviously studied the topic of evolution but I see that you have once again have degressed and have failed to be enlightened. You still don't get it. Isn't it possible that evolution is Intelligent Design?

Could you please fix the quoting so we can tell what the replies are????

[QUOTE=Strange;294435]

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

No actually, I'm talking about humans evolving from fish and not the latter. This is the crux of the term evolution. Drug resistant bacteria is not linked to evolution.

No, that is evolution. It sounds like you want to separate out the evolution of humans from all other forms of evolution? What do you have to say about all the other hominid species in the fossil record?

So are you saying that the evolutionary process is influenced by humans? Are you insinuating that genetic mutation by humans is evolution, leaving aside the drug resistant bacteria?

No. I was just trying to understand your position; where you draw the line. You seem to agree that evolution happens at the level of things like drug resistance in bacteria but not in the development of humans. We have seen many other examples of evolution, including the development of new species, both in the wild and the lab. Plus we have a history of (incomplete) sequences of species apparently descended, one from another, in the fossil record.

We see that species are not just a good fit for their environment (as if they had been design for it) but that they adapt to their environment.

There is no proof of this that we've adapted to a changing environment as we can only speculate what the environment was at the time and what were the driving forces behind adapting. With this analogy, can evolution predict how we will adapt with our ever changing environment today? Answer no.

So is it just humans you think were created (or designed, if you prefer) or is there some other level of evolution you would draw the line at?

No. It just happens to be the centre of our existance.

And if (modern) humans were created/designed as you say, what does that mean for the record of different humanoid species in the past? Did they evolve or were they created and then discarded?

Unless evolution can see a change in DNA for the different humanoid species and link it to a different gene pool, then the evolutionary part is only speculation.

OK. You can say that this whole process of heritable characteristics and natural selection was "designed" in order to allow evolution to take place. That isn't really a scientific position though because it can never be falsified.

Correct. I essentially I draw the line here:
That above all the discussion of evolution, Intelligent design prevails as being the mechanism for making some sense to our existance through evolution or not. No one can denounce this even if it is non scientific.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

There is no proof of this that we've adapted to a changing environment as we can only speculate what the environment was at the time and what were the driving forces behind adapting.

But, as I said, we do see other species adapting and new species arising. That is not speculation. That is direct observational evidence.

We can also make some fairly straightforward observations about some of the adaptations that humans have had to make; e.g. moving from Africa (where dark skin protects from the harmful effects of the sun) to northern latitudes (where synthesizing vitamin D is a problem so lighter skin is useful). Or the prevalence of various disease such as sickle cell in areas where malaria is prevalent. Or, most recently, the development of lactose tolerance amongst populations that relied on dairy products.

With this analogy, can evolution predict how we will adapt with our ever changing environment today? Answer no.

Well, specifics no. But we can make general predictions about the directions adaptation will be driven by selection. Sometimes we are surprised by the novel solutions nature comes up with.

Unless evolution can see a change in DNA for the different humanoid species and link it to a different gene pool, then the evolutionary part is only speculation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean there. We can look at the DNA sequences of (some) other humanoid species and see the similarities and differences from H sapiens, including evidence that we may have interbred with H neanderthalis. We can use this (and physical characteristics) to build a "family tree" of relationships.

But if all these different humanoid species were "intelligently designed" then why aren't they all still around? Is this intelligent design partly a matter of trial and error?

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by John Gault

There is abundant evidence for evolution in palaeontology, embryology and genetics. Provide, in detail, a single piece of evidence for Intelligent Design. Hand waving and word salad are not sufficient

.

This may be so but it is built up from a lot of speculation.

You are once again displaying a deep ignorance of the development of evolutionary theory. It is underpinned and built up from very solid, well validated observations. Such speculation as there may have been was throughly validated by experiment and observation. If you continue to claim otherwise you are choosing to ignore those experiments and observations. I invite you to cite a single speculation that you believe the theory to be built upon. If you are unable to do so it is a tacit admission that your statement was false.

Originally Posted by John Gault

I have not said that I dispute the possibility of creation. I don't. Creation and evolution are two completely separate things. The universe could have been created by something, we'll call it God for convenience, then left to run according to its laws and constants. Whether or not that is what happened there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.

I noticed the words "could have been created". Are you a convert?

A convert to what from what? I am an objective amateur scientist. Science can say very little about the creation of the universe, so I have no reason to rule out the possibility of an entity that some might choose to call God.

Originally Posted by John Gault

While we are at it, I do not dispute the possibility of Intelligent Design. I just say that I see no compelling evidence in support of it, and ask again, please provide some, in detail, without the waffle.

There is no waffle here.

There is nothing but waffle, or in the case of your latest repsonse - nothing. So I ask you yet again, please provide a detailed example in which Intelligent Design is clealry demonstrated to offer a superior explanation to Evolution.

Originally Posted by John Gault

I am fully aware of the distinction, as I trust my earlier remarks demonstrate. They are wholly separate. The existence of one does not necessitate the existence of the other. End of story.

Actually, this is just the beginning of the discussion. You obviously have identified there is more to intelligent design than meets the eye. Tell your peers about it!. I'll support you. Maybe you are beginning to see the light.

You are clutching at straws. All I said here was that Intelligent Design envisages the appearance of evolution mediated by an external entity. Creation envisages a single act of generating kinds. Those are different. (They are the same in that they both lack any serious evidence, but they are not identical.)

Originally Posted by John Gault

Engineers are now using natural selection algorithms to produce superior mechanical designs. Think about that: the process of natural selection produces better designs, faster than can be achieved by intelligence. For example.

Actually you are very wrong here. All software algorithms are written using logical processes.

Please pay attention. The algorithms mirror the process of natural selection as it is seen to occur in nature. What don't you understand about that?

Isn't it possible that evolution is Intelligent Design?

Will you please attempt to understand what you are being told. Do I have to continually repeat myself. I do not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design being involved in evolution. However, I see no significant evidence in support of this. I have asked you for such evidence. You have so far failed to provide any. The door is still open for you.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Engineers are now using natural selection algorithms to produce superior mechanical designs. Think about that: the process of natural selection produces better designs, faster than can be achieved by intelligence. For example.

Actually you are very wrong here. All software algorithms are written using logical processes.

Many engineering problems are now tackled using so-called "genetic algorithms". These use what we have learned about the way evolution works in nature to come up with solutions to various engineering problems - including new software algorithms, novel mathematical proofs, and new chemical or mechanical structures. These are often better than things that a human has come up with, and developed more quickly.

In some ways, this is a partial analogy for your version of ID: the algorithm for performing the evolution and selection is set up by the human designer, but once the process is running there is no involvement to "guide" it in a particular direction (that would undermine the whole point). The results that are generated by this "random" process are completely outside the control of the human.

So if you want to limit the role of your Designer to just setting up the system in which evolution takes place, then you can do that (personally, I see no evidence or necessity for that). But you seem to want to go further and say that humans (specifically?) were produced by the Designer "guiding" the evolutionary process in a particular way. Again, we see no evidence for that. But it can't be ruled out as a process that is indistinguishable from what could have happened without that "guiding hand".

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

There is no proof of this that we've adapted to a changing environment as we can only speculate what the environment was at the time and what were the driving forces behind adapting.

But, as I said, we do see other species adapting and new species arising. That is not speculation. That is direct observational evidence.

We can also make some fairly straightforward observations about some of the adaptations that humans have had to make; e.g. moving from Africa (where dark skin protects from the harmful effects of the sun) to northern latitudes (where synthesizing vitamin D is a problem so lighter skin is useful). Or the prevalence of various disease such as sickle cell in areas where malaria is prevalent. Or, most recently, the development of lactose tolerance amongst populations that relied on dairy products.

With this analogy, can evolution predict how we will adapt with our ever changing environment today? Answer no.

Well, specifics no. But we can make general predictions about the directions adaptation will be driven by selection. Sometimes we are surprised by the novel solutions nature comes up with.

Unless evolution can see a change in DNA for the different humanoid species and link it to a different gene pool, then the evolutionary part is only speculation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean there. We can look at the DNA sequences of (some) other humanoid species and see the similarities and differences from H sapiens, including evidence that we may have interbred with H neanderthalis. We can use this (and physical characteristics) to build a "family tree" of relationships.

The human genome has 23 chromosomes. If evolution had taken place, there would have possibly been a change in the number and sequence of chromosomes of a species. Inter humanoid species with similar differences would have had the same number of chromosomes and therefore could have very well interbred and reproduced. On the other hand, consider humans breeding with tigers. Tigers would have different chromosomes. It is genetically not possible without mutation. The number of chromosomes is different and the coding of them completely different. How does evolution explain this?

But if all these different humanoid species were "intelligently designed" then why aren't they all still around? Is this intelligent design partly a matter of trial and error?

I cannot answer that. Maybe they were proto-types!

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by John Gault

There is abundant evidence for evolution in palaeontology, embryology and genetics. Provide, in detail, a single piece of evidence for Intelligent Design. Hand waving and word salad are not sufficient

.

This may be so but it is built up from a lot of speculation.

You are once again displaying a deep ignorance of the development of evolutionary theory. It is underpinned and built up from very solid, well validated observations. Such speculation as there may have been was throughly validated by experiment and observation. If you continue to claim otherwise you are choosing to ignore those experiments and observations. I invite you to cite a single speculation that you believe the theory to be built upon. If you are unable to do so it is a tacit admission that your statement was false.

Originally Posted by John Gault

I have not said that I dispute the possibility of creation. I don't. Creation and evolution are two completely separate things. The universe could have been created by something, we'll call it God for convenience, then left to run according to its laws and constants. Whether or not that is what happened there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.

I noticed the words "could have been created". Are you a convert?

A convert to what from what? I am an objective amateur scientist. Science can say very little about the creation of the universe, so I have no reason to rule out the possibility of an entity that some might choose to call God.

Originally Posted by John Gault

While we are at it, I do not dispute the possibility of Intelligent Design. I just say that I see no compelling evidence in support of it, and ask again, please provide some, in detail, without the waffle.

There is no waffle here.

There is nothing but waffle, or in the case of your latest repsonse - nothing. So I ask you yet again, please provide a detailed example in which Intelligent Design is clealry demonstrated to offer a superior explanation to Evolution.

Originally Posted by John Gault

I am fully aware of the distinction, as I trust my earlier remarks demonstrate. They are wholly separate. The existence of one does not necessitate the existence of the other. End of story.

Actually, this is just the beginning of the discussion. You obviously have identified there is more to intelligent design than meets the eye. Tell your peers about it!. I'll support you. Maybe you are beginning to see the light.

You are clutching at straws. All I said here was that Intelligent Design envisages the appearance of evolution mediated by an external entity. Creation envisages a single act of generating kinds. Those are different. (They are the same in that they both lack any serious evidence, but they are not identical.)

Originally Posted by John Gault

Engineers are now using natural selection algorithms to produce superior mechanical designs. Think about that: the process of natural selection produces better designs, faster than can be achieved by intelligence. For example.

Actually you are very wrong here. All software algorithms are written using logical processes.

Please pay attention. The algorithms mirror the process of natural selection as it is seen to occur in nature. What don't you understand about that?

How does a software programmer "mirror the process of natural selection" without firstly completely understanding or knowing the driving forces, instincts and emotions of a species? It's similar to the prediction of the weather and we all know that despite using some of the most powerful computers to predict the weather, they always get it wrong, especially in Australia. Imagine trying to predict what the driving forces were a mere 10000 years ago and then successfully modelling them into a logical computer program. It's only speculation.

Isn't it possible that evolution is Intelligent Design?

Will you please attempt to understand what you are being told. Do I have to continually repeat myself. I do not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design being involved in evolution. However, I see no significant evidence in support of this. I have asked you for such evidence. You have so far failed to provide any. The door is still open for you.

I see your point and have seen it from the beginning of the discussion. The only thing I can say here is that the study of evolution is built up opon a lot of careful scientific observation just like Intelligent Design but with Intelligent Design it is a level above. The examples of speculative proof that pertain to the evolution of the species are also examples of intelligent design that the species are built upon. When we try to prove aspects of evolution, you also prove the existance of Intelligent Design. You can not have one without the other or break down Intelligent Design any further without accepting a divine creator. This is the point where many scientisits draw the line.

Before evolution must have come creation. All scientists should accept this. If they cannot comprehend up to this point, then they are not scientists.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

The human genome has 23 chromosomes. If evolution had taken place, there would have possibly been a change in the number and sequence of chromosomes of a species. Inter humanoid species with similar differences would have had the same number of chromosomes and therefore could have very well interbred and reproduced. On the other hand, consider humans breeding with tigers. Tigers would have different chromosomes. It is genetically not possible without mutation. The number of chromosomes is different and the coding of them completely different. How does evolution explain this?

Sorry but I can't really make any sense out of that. Yes, at least some human species were genetically compatible and may have interbred. And yes, in general different species cannot interbreed. This is one of the definitions of "species". And one of the mechanisms for a new species arising is a change in the number of chromosomes. All of that is well understood. I'm not clear what you think needs explaining?

Any comments on all the observed examples of evolution (and even speciation)? How does that fit with your theory?

I cannot answer that. Maybe they were proto-types!

A new heresy: Trial-and-error Design

Originally Posted by Curtologic

How does a software programmer "mirror the process of natural selection" without firstly completely understanding or knowing the driving forces, instincts and emotions of a species?

It has nothing to do with understanding a species. It is just using the principles of evolution: a diverse population, possibly some random mutation, possibly mixing components within the population (aka "sex") and, most importantly, selection of the best ("fittest") candidates. Rinse and repeat. That's all it takes to come up with better solutions than an intelligent designer can.

Do you begin to see why some of us are a bit sceptical of the need for an Intelligent Designer?

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by curtologic

You obviously made the point that all things around us are purposeless.

No. I obviously made the point that the "system around me" had no evident purpose.

And I requested of you, since you claim to be able to discern purpose in this "system around", your criteria for "better" design of it.

Originally Posted by curtologic

Iceaura, can I ask you something?

Try answering, first.

Can I suggest that if the system around you has no purpose, maybe you should change your job to one that fulfils your needs. Can I suggest having a child. It will make you see that there is purpose to it all.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

How does a software programmer "mirror the process of natural selection" without firstly completely understanding or knowing the driving forces, instincts and emotions of a species?

It has nothing to do with understanding a species. It is just using the principles of evolution: a diverse population, possibly some random mutation, possibly mixing components within the population (aka "sex") and, most importantly, selection of the best ("fittest") candidates. Rinse and repeat. That's all it takes to come up with better solutions than an intelligent designer can.

Do you begin to see why some of us are a bit sceptical of the need for an Intelligent Designer?

Yes I do. How do we classify intelligence? We always compare it to ourselves don't we? It's all relative. Since I know I am not able to use my intelligence to create things as perfectly suited for our environment like nature can, I therefore cannot call myself intelligently superior. This is why it is called intelligent design created by an intelligent designer.

The point in history when single cells began to form symbiotic relationships to improve their survival rates is intelligence. When single cells began to swap DNA molecules that improved their adaption success is intelligence. When all of these single cells after many years of perfecting biochemical engineering they created all the biodiversity on this planet and that is intelligent design. We are covered in single cell organisms inside and out and they are invested in our well being as you are in your individual thinking of your own body.

I don't care if science choses to slant a different story of evolution, this is my version of how I interpret the data from science. I can't prove my opinion is correct and I can't say my opinion won't change if new discoveries are found in science. Today, this is what I believe to be true.

Originally Posted by nokton

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by tszy

Hi

Just to be clear - I've no time for any religious nonsense so when the other day, some guy stops me in the street and thrusts a leaflet
about intelligent design into my face I took the opportunity to respond.

The guy drew my attention to an article showing how more efficient an energy saving light bulb is compared to a conventional one.
The article then went on to declare that firefly light is even more efficient and thus cited this as a justification of intelligent design.

There is no point putting forward a reasoned scientific argument to these people as they are too far gone to be objective but I thought I'd try
to use the argument against itself by pointing out the incredible variety of species of living things can be considered [ in 'design' speak ] as prototypes.

My point was that if the designer was that intelligent, why so many prototypes? Surely this signifies a poor design process ?

I also pointed out to this guy that he was standing there alone accosting folks on the street because people of a scientific persuasion do not need
to promote their ideas in this way as they are self evident, stand up for themselves and don't need to be 'pushed' onto people.

Advocates of intelligent design do the equivalent of dismantling[ for example ] a modern communications satellite and declaring it too sophisitcated and complex to have just appeared - which indeed it did not. Like everything else, satellites started out as much simpler devices. The Russian Sputnik was basically a metal sphere with some aerials sticking out of it that made a 'Beep beep' noise that could be picked up on radio. Sputnik wasn't actually of any use other than being the first prototype. So why dismantle the flagellant system found in some microscopic bacteria and declare it the work of God? It just doesn't make any sense.

My fervent hope is that the 21st Century is viewed in history as a period of enlightement where human kind shook off the obscuring shroud of religion and all the pain, suffering and atrocity that it wreaked upon the world

I think the point of intelligent design extends beyond what we do not and will not (in my opinion) understand that god was the creator of all the elements and the universe. It is those very elements we use to create things with. Without these elements we wouldn't be here to argue this very point. So if modern science in the 21st century can prove we are not really here, then I can humbly say that you have a point. By the way, I am not a religious freak.

Curt, never took you for one.
My point, was, and is, by what standard do we evaluate intelligence? Is it a who, or a what, or
neither. We judge and conclude appropriate according to a way of thinking.
Ok Curt, lets explore, why did it take so long for Man to emerge if an intelligence, as we understand it,
was driving evolution? Curt, only a chance asteroid that came too close, gave us a chance to evolve.
That is not intelligence, nor is it a god. But that is beside the question I ask, what is the driving force
behind evolution. There is no intelligence, just a program for life at any cost, and adaptable to any
situation, the where and why are beyond me at this present time, but I will get there.
nokton.

You are under the assumption that intelligence began with "man" which is why many people have a problem letting go of "intelligent design"

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Without disrespect, it sound like you have the capabilty of designing a better system than the one around you.

I have one. A nice, spherical, black body. Low maintainance, see?

Sorry but I can't really make any sense out of that. Yes, at least some human species were genetically compatible and may have interbred. And yes, in general different species cannot interbreed. This is one of the definitions of "species". And one of the mechanisms for a new species arising is a change in the number of chromosomes. All of that is well understood. I'm not clear what you think needs explaining?

That is exactly why evolution does not parr with me. How did we evolve from fish and where is the missing link? Now that you mentioned it, an old beauty- What came first the chicken or the egg?

Any comments on all the observed examples of evolution (and even speciation)? How does that fit with your theory?

My theory is that there must have been some sort of intervention from the intelligent designer to make this happen.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Without disrespect, it sound like you have the capabilty of designing a better system than the one around you.

I have one. A nice, spherical, black body. Low maintainance, see?

And where does the reality of your existance fit in???

Originally Posted by Curtologic

That is exactly why evolution does not parr with me. How did we evolve from fish and where is the missing link? Now that you mentioned it, an old beauty- What came first the chicken or the egg?

Here is a timeline of human evolution:
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure what you mean by "missing link"; there is no such thing. Are you expecting a creature which is half fish and half human? There may be gaps in the fossil record. But that is hardly surprising when you consider the minute fraction of organisms that get fossilised and the minute fraction of those that we have found (although we continue to find more all the time).

Any comments on all the observed examples of evolution (and even speciation)? How does that fit with your theory?

My theory is that there must have been some sort of intervention from the intelligent designer to make this happen.

There is no evidence for that sort of intelligent intervention though. And no evidence for a need for it, even. In fact, our experience with genetic algorithms to solve engineering problems is that if you try and intervene or direct the results in a particular direction you often get worse results than letting things take their natural course.

The natural process of evolution seems to be a pretty optimal way of solving problems. (It could almost have been design, but it probably evolved naturally!)

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Sorry but I can't really make any sense out of that. Yes, at least some human species were genetically compatible and may have interbred. And yes, in general different species cannot interbreed. This is one of the definitions of "species". And one of the mechanisms for a new species arising is a change in the number of chromosomes. All of that is well understood. I'm not clear what you think needs explaining?

That is exactly why evolution does not parr with me. How did we evolve from fish and where is the missing link? Now that you mentioned it, an old beauty- What came first the chicken or the egg?

Any comments on all the observed examples of evolution (and even speciation)? How does that fit with your theory?

My theory is that there must have been some sort of intervention from the intelligent designer to make this happen.

See, it is posts like these that show everyone here that you have no idea how evolution works, have no idea of the evidence gathered for it and that you are just arguing from general ignorance. Why not take the time and really study the concepts properly? Without you knowing anything about it, this whole debate is pointless, because you are attempting to refute something you don't understand at all. How do you expect that to be productive?

Originally Posted by curtologic

Try answering, first.

Can I suggest that if the system around you has no purpose, maybe you should change your job to one that fulfils your needs.

You can refuse to answer the question in any number of meaningless and deceptive ways, sure.

The question was about your criteria for evaluating changes to "the system around us" as better or worse. You seem to think the concept makes sense, so it's you I ask for enlightenment in the matter.

Originally Posted by curt

My theory is that there must have been some sort of intervention from the intelligent designer to make this happen.

The next step would be making some sort of argument for that assertion, and providing evidence supporting said argument.

So that the rest of us have something more than your apparently uninformed declarations of opinion, to work with.

Meanwhile, this is kind of nagging in the wake:

Originally Posted by curtologic

There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved apart from inter-race combinations and I guess that this is another discussion.

The first response is "uh oh". But maybe there's a teachable moment in there?

Originally Posted by Strange

But, as I said, we do see other species adapting and new species arising. That is not speculation. That is direct observational evidence.

We can also make some fairly straightforward observations about some of the adaptations that humans have had to make; e.g. moving from Africa (where dark skin protects from the harmful effects of the sun) to northern latitudes (where synthesizing vitamin D is a problem so lighter skin is useful). Or the prevalence of various disease such as sickle cell in areas where malaria is prevalent. Or, most recently, the development of lactose tolerance amongst populations that relied on dairy products.

All evolution really is, is development and growth. I don't know how the concept of evolution fights with the concept of intelligent design. Why is it not possible that an intelligence purposefully put things into motion to grow and develop? Scientists do it all the time in a petri dish. Some of them are intelligent. Right?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Will you please attempt to understand what you are being told. Do I have to continually repeat myself. I do not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design being involved in evolution. However, I see no significant evidence in support of this. I have asked you for such evidence. You have so far failed to provide any. The door is still open for you.

John, exactly what sort of evidence do you need? All notions/implications of religiosity aside, isn't it clear that none of the this could have just happened? You might as well tell me computers simply happened without any intelligent design because they are capable of learning and evolving.

Originally Posted by votinforu

All notions/implications of religiosity aside, isn't it clear that none of the this could have just happened?

No, not at all. We still await evidence...

Originally Posted by Barbi

The point in history when single cells began to form symbiotic relationships to improve their survival rates is intelligence. When single cells began to swap DNA molecules that improved their adaption success is intelligence. When all of these single cells after many years of perfecting biochemical engineering they created all the biodiversity on this planet and that is intelligent design. We are covered in single cell organisms inside and out and they are invested in our well being as you are in your individual thinking of your own body.

I don't care if science choses to slant a different story of evolution, this is my version of how I interpret the data from science. I can't prove my opinion is correct and I can't say my opinion won't change if new discoveries are found in science. Today, this is what I believe to be true.

I agree with your explanation, but I must ask, where did the single cell come from? Did it just happen or was it created? And, how did that single cell know it should improve its survival rate? Why didn't it just sit there like a lump and do nothing?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by votinforu

All notions/implications of religiosity aside, isn't it clear that none of the this could have just happened?

No, not at all. We still await evidence...

The evidence is in the natural law of cause and effect. Something had to start the whole evolutionary process in motion from the very beginning. The process had to begin with a thought. There is no other logical beginning.

Originally Posted by votinforu

I don't know how the concept of evolution fights with the concept of intelligent design. Why is it not possible that an intelligence purposefully put things into motion to grow and develop?

Well, that might be the case. I just don't see any evidence or other reason to believe it is.

Originally Posted by votinforu

The evidence is in the natural law of cause and effect.

Is there any such law? We know of things that appear not to have a cause.

Something had to start the whole evolutionary process in motion from the very beginning.

Did it?

The process had to begin with a thought.

Even if it had to start with something, why did it have to be a "thought"?

There is no other logical beginning.

Well, there might be. (I don't claim to have any idea what it might be.) Or there may not have been a beginning as such. It could be an endless sequence of expansion, collapse and re-expansion. (I know the evidence doesn't currently support that, but we can't rule it out completely.)

Originally Posted by votinforu

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by votinforu

All notions/implications of religiosity aside, isn't it clear that none of the this could have just happened?

No, not at all. We still await evidence...

The evidence is in the natural law of cause and effect. Something had to start the whole evolutionary process in motion from the very beginning. The process had to begin with a thought. There is no other logical beginning.

Why? Because you say so? Because that's the only thing that makes sense to you?

I see no such need.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by votinforu

All notions/implications of religiosity aside, isn't it clear that none of the this could have just happened?

No, not at all. We still await evidence...

Check out this YouTube video. Maybe it will make sense to you. It's less than 3 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6C13jMbDt6Y#!

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by votinforu

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by votinforu

All notions/implications of religiosity aside, isn't it clear that none of the this could have just happened?

No, not at all. We still await evidence...

The evidence is in the natural law of cause and effect. Something had to start the whole evolutionary process in motion from the very beginning. The process had to begin with a thought. There is no other logical beginning.

Why? Because you say so? Because that's the only thing that makes sense to you?

I see no such need.

Okay, so you tell me, Wayne. If it didn't start with a thought, how did it begin? Please.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by votinforu

The evidence is in the natural law of cause and effect.

Is there any such law? We know of things that appear not to have a cause.

Something had to start the whole evolutionary process in motion from the very beginning.

Did it?

The process had to begin with a thought.

Even if it had to start with something, why did it have to be a "thought"?

There is no other logical beginning.

Well, there might be. (I don't claim to have any idea what it might be.) Or there may not have been a beginning as such. It could be an endless sequence of expansion, collapse and re-expansion. (I know the evidence doesn't currently support that, but we can't rule it out completely.)

Wow. The lack of logic in your responses are just so vacant and untenable. Why don't you just say, "I have no desire for any truth whatsoever."

Let me just leave you with this one small, well known, well understood, elementary, simplistic logical fact: If there is a middle, there is a beginning.

Originally Posted by votinforu

Wow. The lack of logic in your responses are just so vacant and untenable. Why don't you just say, "I have no desire for any truth whatsoever."

Sorry, I was just asking questions to try an understand what you base these ideas on.

Let me just leave you with this one small, well known, well understood, elementary, simplistic logical fact: If there is a middle, there is a beginning.

That may be true. I'm not sure I see the relevance though.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by votinforu

Wow. The lack of logic in your responses are just so vacant and untenable. Why don't you just say, "I have no desire for any truth whatsoever."

Sorry, I was just asking questions to try an understand what you base these ideas on.

Let me just leave you with this one small, well known, well understood, elementary, simplistic logical fact: If there is a middle, there is a beginning.

That may be true. I'm not sure I see the relevance though.

I apologize if my remark sounded caustic. I'm frustrated because I just don't know how to explain it much better than that.
The relevance is that evolution suggests a progression of forward movement. That being the case, and clearly we are somewhere in the middle of that succession as evolution is an ongoing process, then it's rational to believe the existence of a middle plane indicates there has to be a beginning. Evolution does not start in the middle. Starting equates to beginning.

Originally Posted by votinforu

I apologize if my remark sounded caustic. I'm frustrated because I just don't know how to explain it much better than that.

The problem is, I think, that you made a number of assertions that seem to be based on nothing more than "common sense", which doesn't always work too well. For example, the "natural law of cause and effect"; there is no such law as far as I am aware. It is generally true, but there are effects we know of that have no cause (to the best of our knowledge) and there is even evidence that they can not have a cause.

The relevance is that evolution suggests a progression of forward movement.

I don't believe that is a particularly accurate description of evolution. There is meaningful definition of "progress" that can be applied to evolution. However, clearly life began at some point. The planet was created at some earlier point. But I don't see why the starting point has to be "thought" as you said.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Sorry but I can't really make any sense out of that. Yes, at least some human species were genetically compatible and may have interbred. And yes, in general different species cannot interbreed. This is one of the definitions of "species". And one of the mechanisms for a new species arising is a change in the number of chromosomes. All of that is well understood. I'm not clear what you think needs explaining?

That is exactly why evolution does not parr with me. How did we evolve from fish and where is the missing link? Now that you mentioned it, an old beauty- What came first the chicken or the egg?

Any comments on all the observed examples of evolution (and even speciation)? How does that fit with your theory?

As I explained previously, species that differ by their DNA structure cannot breed so what is it that you don't understand? How is it that a single egg or chicken evolved then started a species? There must have been a beginning for that species. How exactly does evolutionary theory explain that?


My theory is that there must have been some sort of intervention from the intelligent designer to make this happen.

See, it is posts like these that show everyone here that you have no idea how evolution works, have no idea of the evidence gathered for it and that you are just arguing from general ignorance. Why not take the time and really study the concepts properly? Without you knowing anything about it, this whole debate is pointless, because you are attempting to refute something you don't understand at all. How do you expect that to be productive?

See, it is posts like these that show everyone here that you have no idea what intelligent design is, oblivious to the things around you and that you are just arguing from speculation and ignorance. Why not take the time and really think about how is it that you were put on this planet, given the ability to think about your own existance and why you were created and think about it carefully? Without you comprehending this, the whole debate is pointless, because you are attempting to refute something you can't understand at all. How do you expect that to be productive?

LOL!

Never argue with a creationist (or IDer!)! It is like playing chess with a pigeon.

They flap their wings a lot, knock over all the pieces and then they fly back to their flock and claim victory!

Why? Because they have not read the rules, or if they did, they simply did not understand them!

Curtologic, all your problems stem from your lack of understanding of the evolutionary process - your reference to a "missing link" shows this, it's as if the past 100 years never happened!

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by curtologic

Try answering, first.

Can I suggest that if the system around you has no purpose, maybe you should change your job to one that fulfils your needs.

You can refuse to answer the question in any number of meaningless and deceptive ways, sure.

The question was about your criteria for evaluating changes to "the system around us" as better or worse. You seem to think the concept makes sense, so it's you I ask for enlightenment in the matter.

Originally Posted by curt

OK Iceaura, I get your point. Nonetheless, the comment served its purpose to make you see that there a purpose to the system around you. You just happen to take it a little personally. It was not my intention.

My theory is that there must have been some sort of intervention from the intelligent designer to make this happen.

The next step would be making some sort of argument for that assertion, and providing evidence supporting said argument.

So that the rest of us have something more than your apparently uninformed declarations of opinion, to work with.

Meanwhile, this is kind of nagging in the wake:

Originally Posted by curtologic

There is no real substantiating evidence that we have evolved apart from inter-race combinations and I guess that this is another discussion.

The first response is "uh oh". But maybe there's a teachable moment in there?

I'll put it another way. Have you ever thought how something biological can "think" of how it can better survive in the system? It seems impossible that one atom "thinks" about how it can better adapt in the system (for what purpose beats me) but many strung together somehow can? Is it a culmination of many little thoughts from many atoms or is it a completely different thing? That is the intelligent design part. I know that this is deviating away from the theory of evolution but my point is that Intelligent design extends beyond biological realm. Now look at this analogy and put it in the context of my initial response I gave you. You have all the evidence you need to support intelligent design.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

LOL!

Never argue with a creationist (or IDer!)! It is like playing chess with a pigeon.

They flap their wings a lot, knock over all the pieces and then they fly back to their flock and claim victory!

Why? Because they have not read the rules, or if they did, they simply did not understand them!

Curtologic, all your problems stem from your lack of understanding of the evolutionary process - your reference to a "missing link" shows this, it's as if the past 100 years never happened!

You obviously have a problem understanding me too! At least you're not the only one. I have done everything to avoid a debate on creation. What on earth are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Have you ever thought how something biological can "think" of how it can better survive in the system?

It doesn't have to "think" about it any more than water has to think about running downhill. It just responds to environmental pressure, i.e. selection acting on population diversity.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

LOL!

Never argue with a creationist (or IDer!)! It is like playing chess with a pigeon.

They flap their wings a lot, knock over all the pieces and then they fly back to their flock and claim victory!

Why? Because they have not read the rules, or if they did, they simply did not understand them!

Curtologic, all your problems stem from your lack of understanding of the evolutionary process - your reference to a "missing link" shows this, it's as if the past 100 years never happened!

You obviously have a problem understanding me too! At least you're not the only one. I have done everything to avoid a debate on creation. What on earth are you talking about?

Forget I mentioned creationism then. Your intelligent designer must have evolved naturally, with no intelligent intervention? If so, why couldn't humans have evolved naturally, with no intelligent intervention?

However, if your intelligent designer WAS also intelligently designed themselves, were does it end? Creationism? Or do you have something else in mind?

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Have you ever thought how something biological can "think" of how it can better survive in the system? It seems impossible that one atom "thinks" about how it can better adapt in the system (for what purpose beats me) but many strung together somehow can? Is it a culmination of many little thoughts from many atoms or is it a completely different thing? That is the intelligent design part. I know that this is deviating away from the theory of evolution but my point is that Intelligent design extends beyond biological realm. Now look at this analogy and put it in the context of my initial response I gave you. You have all the evidence you need to support intelligent design.

The animal does not "think" of how it can better adapt!!

The animal that just happens to be born with an attribute that makes it better suited to its surroundings than others, breeds just like any other. Over a few generations, there is an increase in the number of animals with that attribute, and it becomes an attribute that helps attract a mate, making it even more successful. Over many, many generations, the instance of that attribute increases through that animal population.

[QUOTE=SpeedFreek;295123][QUOTE=Curtologic;295118]

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

LOL!

Forget I mentioned creationism then. Your intelligent designer must have evolved naturally, with no intelligent intervention? If so, why couldn't humans have evolved naturally, with no intelligent intervention?

However, if your intelligent designer WAS also intelligently designed themselves, were does it end? Creationism? Or do you have something else in mind?

Firstly, I consider that my intelligent designer was also your intelligent designer, and as I have said previously, evolution could have very well been intelligently designed itself but if you don't think it is intelligent, then you must have thought it was an easy thing to do because as a species, we understand all that is necessary through the thoery of evolution right? There are many thing we will never understand as a species however, ID is something you will never comprehend unfortunately. Yes it does ultimately end with the creator. I have drawn the line just before it though.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Have you ever thought how something biological can "think" of how it can better survive in the system? It seems impossible that one atom "thinks" about how it can better adapt in the system (for what purpose beats me) but many strung together somehow can? Is it a culmination of many little thoughts from many atoms or is it a completely different thing? That is the intelligent design part. I know that this is deviating away from the theory of evolution but my point is that Intelligent design extends beyond biological realm. Now look at this analogy and put it in the context of my initial response I gave you. You have all the evidence you need to support intelligent design.

The animal does not "think" of how it can better adapt!!

The animal that just happens to be born with an attribute that makes it better suited to its surroundings than others, breeds just like any other. Over a few generations, there is an increase in the number of animals with that attribute, and it becomes an attribute that helps attract a mate, making it even more successful. Over many, many generations, the instance of that attribute increases through that animal population.

I wonder how a partial human hybrid made itself more attractive to attract another mate like a fish??? Sorry for the sarcasm (and I am fully aware that there is much more to it) but I just don't get it. This is the missing link! Let's just say we did evolve from fish, do you think that there was just one generation of hybrids? Surely this must have occured through millions and millions of years and there should be ample fossils for us to see right. This is a logical extrapolation of the data that just does not fit in with evolutionary theory. As a scientific observer something just does not add up right? ....And it goes on - we just haven't found them yet. And to add to the probability of "that we just haven't found them yet" , it apparently just occured in the last 100,000 years or so since the homo sapien. Surely there would be less to dig up to find these fossils and the chances are greater of finding them unless of course there must have been a transitional species that evolved and ate up all the fossils on the earth!