"Intelligent" Design

[swansont]

consider this: all stages are transitional

 

 

or terminal.

 

If life was designed, how come there is extinction?

[atinymonkey]

IDists believe the fossil record significantly lacks evidence of evolution in both quantity and in transional stages of evolution.

Which they are free to do. But it does not mean that there is lack of significant evidence of transitionals in the fossil record, it only means that Literal Creationists don't accept the evidence. Now, if evidence is being rejected in order to sustain belief then you can hardly hope scientists will agree with that position.

[Mokele]

IDists believe the fossil record significantly lacks evidence of evolution in both quantity and in transional stages of evolution.

 

That's because they are intellectually dishonest.

 

If they actually, oh, say, LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE, namely the fossil record, they would see an *abundance* of transitional forms.

 

But, of course, they're all either morons or liars, so they continue parroting their lies about there being few transitional fossils.

 

People might actual start respecting IDers if they didn't, you know, lie all the time...

 

Mokele

[buzsaw]

Which they are free to do. But it does not mean that there is lack of significant evidence of transitionals in the fossil record, it only means that Literal Creationists don't accept the evidence. Now, if evidence is being rejected in order to sustain belief then you can hardly hope scientists will agree with that position.

 

Why would most evolution scientists agree to anything that might, in any way, discredit their interpretation of the fossil record evidence? LOL!

 

The fossil record evidence which you aledge IDists are rejecting is the same evidence IDists accept and interpret as showing the absence of sufficient transitional stages of evolution.

[buzsaw]

That's because they are intellectually dishonest.

 

If they actually' date=' oh, say, LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE, namely the fossil record, they would see an *abundance* of transitional forms.

 

But, of course, they're all either morons or liars, so they continue parroting their lies about there being few transitional fossils.

 

People might actual start respecting IDers if they didn't, you know, lie all the time...

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Ok, Mokele, we have fishes with 4 fins and fossils of fishes with 4 fins. Evolutionists believe we evolved from fishes because fishes were 4 fined and we are 4 limbed. That's about all we have for evidence that we evolved from fishes and evolutionist Gould says "and we've done a good job," by accepting that as evidence. On the other hand, IDists ask, "where are all the transitionals between the 4 fined fish and 4 limbed humans?"

 

IDists are liars in this regard, by rejecting that scanty bit as sufficient evidence that man evolved from fishes? I don't think so!

[atinymonkey]

Why would most evolution scientists agree to anything that might, in any way, discredit their interpretation of the fossil record evidence[/i']? LOL!

It happens every week. The fossil record is amended, restructured, added to, reordered, re-examined, and rethought all the time. That's why paleontologists have jobs. Sometimes the changes are far reaching, most times minor, but they are always ongoing. Paleontologists hope to find a change to the fossil record, it would make them famous and quite a bit richer.

 

By the way, calling paleontologists 'evolution scientists' is quite ignorant, even for you. If you are going to pretend to know the subject, use the correct terminology,

 

The fossil record evidence which you aledge IDists are rejecting is the same evidence IDists accept[/i'] and interpret as showing the absence of sufficient transitional stages of evolution.

No, you are hugely confused. Monumentally confused, in fact. People who believe in intelligent design have absolutely no issue with the fossil record. Almost all Christians believe in intelligent design, a very small minority believe in Literal Creationism. People who believe in Literal Creationism dismiss the fossil record using unsubstanicated mistruth, lies, misrepresentation and rather sad biblical references.

 

If you are saying you believe in intelligent design, then that's fine and nobody has issue with you. If you continue to confuse intelligent design with Literal Creationism, you will offend Christian and Agnostics alike with your innane interpritations.

 

I think it's high time you state, clearly and without equivocation, which Church you are a member of. Then at least we will be able to see when you are moving the goalposts.

[Hellbender]

That's interesting. Can you document that to be true?

 

Probably 99 percent of all the species that have ever lived are now extinct.

 

 

 

 

Can you document that I said intelligent design has no evidence?

Hows this:

My point was clearly that I shouldn't be expected to have proof[/i'] and that I don't claim to have proof.

I've made numerous correct statements about science and evolution. How then can you honestly say I know nothing about evolution and science? This is a blatant false and meanspirited personal insult.

Well you said that there are no significant transitional fossils below. Your creationist sources may say this but it is not true. Thats just the tip of the iceberg. To maintain your creationist status its pretty much a given that you either don't know much about evolution, or purposelly twist it in some way.

IDists interpret some of the evidence from what is observed to be supportive of creationism. One example: The lack of significant evidence of transitionals in the fossil record of the species and organisms.

Read about evolution from objective sources sometime.

Hellbender wrong. Buzsaw right. We all know that even secularist scientists do not always interpret all aspects of science the same, nor do Biblicalists.

Secularist scientists? Where might I find some of them? You do know that not all scientists are atheists right?

[Mokele]

"where are all the transitionals between the 4 fined fish and 4 limbed humans?"

 

::Takes a deep breath::

 

Osteolepis

Eusthenerpeton

panderichthys

hynerpeton

acanthostega

ichthyostega

Pholidogaster (and numerous other labrynthodonts)

Proterogyrinus

Solenodonsaurus

Hylonomus

Paleothyris

Protoclepsydrops

Varanops

Haptodus

Sphenacodon

Biarmosuchia

Procynosuchus

Thrinaxodon

Cynognathus

Probelesodon

Probainognathus

Exaeretodon

Adelobasileus

Morganucodon

Peramus

Endotherium

Kennalestes

Procerberus

Palaechthon

Cantius

Pelycodus

Amphipithecus

Propliopithecus

Aegyptopithecus

Proconsul africanus

Dryopithecus

Kenyapithecus

Australopithecus africanus

Homo habilis

Homo erectus

Homo sapiens

 

::Pants:: Is that enough? Want more? Because I left more than 60% of the list (found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html ) out for the sake of brevity....

 

...and that's *just* the transition between fish and humans. We've got *PLENTY* more for other taxa. Want to know where crocodiles came from? Or how about birds? Or frogs? Or maybe some invertebrates? Name it and we have transitional fossils for it.

 

Now, can you *seriously* tell me that there are "insufficient" transitional fossils? Remember, that's a *SHORT* list. We have over a dozen skeletons showing in excruciating detail the transition between land-living mesonychid carnivores and modern whales (though it's been a while since I checked up on this, and I'm sure more species have been found since).

 

So, ready to admit that the ID claim of "not enough transitional fossils" is a flat-out lie? Or are you going to engage in fallacious 'shifting goalposts', and show your ignorance of basic paleontology by asking for more in between those?

 

Mokele

[Hellbender]

The fossil record evidence which you aledge IDists are rejecting is the same evidence IDists accept[/i'] and interpret as showing the absence of sufficient transitional stages of evolution.

Supposed or real "gaps" in the fossil record is not de facto proof that your intelligent design idea is true.

[swansont]

It should be pointed out that such a list is not a connect-the-dots from point A to point B. To expect that a fossil from every species that has ever existed has been found and catalogued would be a demostration of such profound idiocy and feeble-mindedness that I am confident that anybody has two neurons to rub together and the ability to tie their shoes couldn't make that magnitude of a mistake.

[buzsaw]

 

If you are saying you believe in intelligent design' date=' then that's fine and nobody has issue with you. If you continue to confuse intelligent design with Literal Creationism, you will offend Christian and Agnostics alike with your innane interpritations.[/quote']

 

Please explain to me how abiogenesis, natural selection and random mutation equate intelligent design. When and how does ID begin to work with these?

[atinymonkey]

Please explain to me how abiogenesis, natural selection and random mutation equate intelligent design. When and how does ID begin to work with these?

In exactly the same way that ID applies to the Bible. No Christian contests that the hand of God guided the creation of the Bible, no Christian should contest that the hand of God is present in Evolution. How it happened is immaterial compared to why* it happened.

 

Now, stop ignoring the important points that have been brought up. Do you acknowledge that there is a transitional fossil record that is fully supported, that is being intentionally dismissed out of hand?

 

*The will of God

[buzsaw]

In exactly the same way that ID applies to the Bible. No Christian contests that the hand of God guided the creation of the Bible' date=' no Christian should contest that the hand of God is present in Evolution. [i']How[/i] it happened is immaterial compared to why* it happened.

 

Now, stop ignoring the important points that have been brought up. Do you acknowledge that there is a transitional fossil record that is fully supported, that is being intentionally dismissed out of hand?

 

*The will of God

 

1. What effect can the hand of God possibly have on abiogenesis, natural selection and random mutation?

2. Why it happened? What do you mean?

3. I'm not ignoring important points. The above is one of the important points. I don't acknowledge that species to species evolution is fully supported by the fossil record as I understand species to species. It appears, by Mokele's lenk that a lot of other folks don't either. I've not responded lately because I've been very busy on business matters and will be for awhile.

[CPL.Luke]

I hope I'm not bringing up anything new, but its been proved that chicken dna contains genes from the dinasaurs. If you dissable the few dozen genes that are involved in the creation of a beak, the chicken egg will develop with teeth. I don't know if its been proven yet, but I remember in the same article the scientists responsible hypothesised that if you removed the genes for wings and (to a certain extent feathers) that something very similar to a dinasaur would be created

[buzsaw]

I hope I'm not bringing up anything new, but its been proved that chicken dna contains genes from the dinasaurs. If you dissable the few dozen genes that are involved in the creation of a beak, the chicken egg will develop with teeth. I don't know if its been proven yet, but I remember in the same article the scientists responsible hypothesised that if you removed the genes for wings and (to a certain extent feathers) that something very similar to a dinasaur would be created

 

The IDist's response to this can be that similarities of genes in the various species show that the same designer god made them all, incorporating similarities when those are most useful to each and both. By the same token, human designers and manufacturers of machines often use identical components and parts in one machine designed for earth travel as the one designed for air travel.

[Mokele]

I'm not ignoring important points. The above is one of the important points. I don't acknowledge that species to species evolution is fully supported by the fossil record as I understand species to species. It appears, by Mokele's lenk that a lot of other folks don't either. I've not responded lately because I've been very busy on business matters and will be for awhile.

 

My link is an *EXTENSIVE* list of transitional fossils. Your personal failure to understand the contents (and how badly they prove you wrong) is not our problem.

 

You have no "out" here. Either you acknowledge that I am right about the plentiful transitional fossils, or you acknowledge that you are an intellectually dishonest waste of skin, driven soley by dogma rather than evidence. Pick one.

 

Mokele

[CPL.Luke]

The IDist's response to this can be that similarities of genes in the various species show that the same designer god made them all, incorporating similarities when those are most useful to each and both. By the same token, human designers and manufacturers of machines often use identical components and parts in one machine designed for earth travel as the one designed for air travel.

 

except the genes involved in the creation of teeth in chickens are completely worthless unless acted upon by a human hand. There is no "reason" that they should be there from the perspective of a designer

[buzsaw]

You have no "out" here. Either you acknowledge that I am right about the plentiful transitional fossils' date=' or you acknowledge that you are an intellectually dishonest waste of skin, driven soley by dogma rather than evidence. Pick one.

Mokele[/quote']

Let's back up to my original statement that began this argument. This, from my message 98:

"IDists believe the fossil record significantly lacks evidence of evolution in both quantity and in transional stages of evolution."

 

By my usage of the words "lacks" and "stages", I meant that all the way from fishes to humans, IDists argue that there's a lot lacking. You've got to come up with a quantity of transitional fossils from species to species if you're going to go all the way from oceanic fishes to humans walking upright on earth.

 

My apologies if I don't use correct scientific terminology now and then. I'm not degreed in these fields and we are in Pseudoscience and Metaphysics. I'll do the best I can to articulate clearly.

[buzsaw]

except the genes involved in the creation of teeth in chickens are completely worthless unless acted upon by a human hand. There is no "reason" that they should be there from the perspective of a designer

 

Folks use to think the appendix in humans was worthless, but they were wrong. Those "worthless" genes likely have a purpose in the chicken yet to be discvered.

[ydoaPs]

Let's back up to my original statement that began this argument. This' date=' from my message 98:

"IDists believe the fossil record significantly lacks evidence of evolution in both quantity and in transional stages of evolution."

 

By my usage of the words "lacks" and "stages", I meant that all the way from fishes to humans, IDists argue that there's a lot lacking. You've got to come up with a quantity of transitional fossils from species to species if you're going to go all the way from oceanic fishes to humans walking upright on earth.

 

My apologies if I don't use correct scientific terminology now and then. I'm not degreed in these fields and we are in Pseudoscience and Metaphysics. I'll do the best I can to articulate clearly.[/quote']did you not read the list?

 

Folks use to think the appendix in humans was worthless, but they were wrong.

what, exactly, does the appendix do besides give you appendicitis?

[CPL.Luke]

also if the genes aren't activated then they don't do anything, they just sit there. This is considered to be one of the most conclusive proofs of evolution, junk dna

[Mokele]

Let's back up to my original statement that began this argument. This, from my message 98:

"IDists believe the fossil record significantly lacks evidence of evolution in both quantity and in transional stages of evolution."

 

To which I responded by listing 41 taxa *directly* between fish and humans, each of which represents a transitional stage in that pathway. You can clearly see characteristics such a limbs, the mammalian inner ear, etc becoming more and more developed in this list.

 

That is, if you were to actually *read* it (and the associated link) rather than just dismissing it out of hand, as per your usual dogmatic, intellectually dishonest method.

 

By my usage of the words "lacks" and "stages", I meant that all the way from fishes to humans, IDists argue that there's a lot lacking. You've got to come up with a quantity of transitional fossils from species to species if you're going to go all the way from oceanic fishes to humans walking upright on earth.

 

I listed 41 fossils, and that's an *abridged* list. I could easily double the length of it, showing even *more* transitional forms. All major aspects of what makes a mammal a mammal are shown evolving in that list.

 

In short, I came up with more than enough fossils, both in quantity and quality, to completely refute your arguement. Your tactic seems to be to act as if I never posted them, because you bloody well know that if you faced the evidence, you would have to back down.

 

You are an intellectually dishonest dogmatist, and have no place on these forums. Either face facts, or leave.

 

My apologies if I don't use correct scientific terminology now and then. I'm not degreed in these fields and we are in Pseudoscience and Metaphysics. I'll do the best I can to articulate clearly.

 

This isn't terminology. This is your blatant and willful ignorance of the mountain of evidence I have just put forth that shows you are wrong.

 

To quote a friend of mine: "There is a point beyond which willful ignorance becomes intellectual dishonesty".

 

You've crossed that point and left it far in the dust at this point.

 

Folks use to think the appendix in humans was worthless, but they were wrong. Those "worthless" genes likely have a purpose in the chicken yet to be discvered.

 

1) any purpose of the appendix is minor and likely residual. The fact that it can be safely and easily removed with absolutely no adverse long-term consequences shows that any purpose is trivial compared to the damage it can do.

 

2) These genes can be completely removed from chicks, and they grow up fine and healthy (and tasty). They have no purpose.

 

Oh, and, incidentally, they have gotten chick embryos to grow teeth, by grafting mouse epidermal cells to the developing jaw. See, the genes are there, but need the activation signals (which the mouse tissue can supply) to start tooth development. And before you say it, no, it wasn't mouse teeth that grew. The chicks grew conical, pointed teeth that were the same all along the jaw line. Teeth that were oddly reminiscent of reptile teeth, and more specifically, reminiscent of the teeth of theropod dinosaurs.

 

While you're dodging that with your typical intellectual dishonesty, lets hear an ID explanation for the occaisional horses born with 3 toes on each foot, and the whales that have been caught with *externally protruding* rear legs.

 

For that matter, tell me why whales and pythons have pelvic and rear-leg bones.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

You've got to come up with a quantity of transitional fossils from species to species if you're going to go all the way from oceanic fishes to humans walking upright on earth.

 

Well, I was clearly wrong in post 110.

[Phi for All]

You've got to come up with a quantity of transitional fossils from species to species if you're going to go all the way from oceanic fishes to humans walking upright on earth.

By your dismissal of obvious evidence, and your unwillingness to admit you have been wrong when presented with proof, it is clear you will continue to argue against evolution at every opportunity simply to repeat your flawed hypotheses. This takes time away from people who have little to spare, and forces our members to wade through pages of denial and logical fallacies in order to glean the morsels of truth posted by others.

 

It is my recommendation to the administrators that you either be banned from the Biological Sciences part of the forum or simply banned altogether. Science welcomes disputation, but at a certain point pigheadedness in the face of strong evidence can't be tolerated. You've been shown more than enough evidence in this and other instances. It's clear you have closed your mind on this subject.

[matt grime]

I quite liked something (a fictional conversation) that Miles Kington wrote in the INdependent this week. It contained the clincher argument against ID: any designer who designed the life we see around us can in no way be called intelligent. Or as Joseph Heller wrote, approximately, how much respect can you have for a asupreme being the chose to include tooth decay in his grand design? I forget the exact words but that's it in spirit. Complexity in a design is a sign of stupidity not intelligence.