Atheistic intelligent design

[Red Hypergiant]

ok karyotypes, chromosomes banding patterns observed with a microscope.... still doesnt prove evolution. Where is the ape or the fish evolving into a completly different specie. Going round and round here, just accept the fact macroevolution can not be observed infact some of you have admitted it you then say "direct observation is not needed"anything other than direct observation is based on faith... do you admit this truth? Admit it then i will happily leave this forum. Atleast then we can get some truth out of you.

 

Just look at the fossil record, phylogenetic tree, and numerous documented cases!

[cypress]

New cell functions like the digestion of nylon byproducts?

 

If you look you will find that this is an example of a single mutation to a single enzyme. When you set the bar low enough, the theory will easily clear it. A pole vaulter that claims he can vault 12 meters proves nothing if he demonstrates his claim by vaulting 2 meters. It is quite unimpressive.

 

Your example is a straw man argument unless you claim that evolution accomplishes all it does by generating a continuous string of these single step mutations. However if this is your claim then you will be able to provide an example of the multistep (4 or more) pathway I requested.

 

I thought that was the point. An improbable (but still possible) mutation occurred within the countless generations, gave benefit to the organism, and the mutation was soon present in the entire population. That's evolution.

 

This is a watered down version of evolution. It is adaptation of existing function to a modified environment but it is still not new form or even a step to a new organism. The original poster was very clear that evolution meant derivation of new forms. Your example is a straw man. because it is not an example of what I described.

 

Now, whether it happened fast enough is a different matter entirely, and I think it'd be hasty to make a judgment on one experiment on one species of bacteria in a single unchanging environment.

 

The changes cannot be separated from the rate because the theory of evolution claims to account for all diversity in geologic time. Your example is adaptation of existing function of a single stand alone enzyme rather than the multi-protein molecular machines I referred too and the multitude of companion systems that must be altered in conjunction with the components. Your example has the same problem that Yoda has.

 

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that I recently discovered that the No Free Lunch theorems don't apply to evolutionary searches. This renders a lot of our previous discussions (and your previous objections) irrelevant. Whoops. This leaves us back where we started, with no mathematical reason why evolutionary searches can't be faster than random searches.

 

I doubt you can prove that NFL does not apply to evolutionary searches, but it would not change the argument because thus far every successful evolutionary search offered has teleological components so you would first have to offer a search routine that does not make use of information imported by the designer

 

Otherwise, yes, I think your goals are more achievable (if still difficult to observe on timeframes less than decades). But unless you catch them on video, I doubt cabinintheforest will be impressed.

 

When you consider the small estimated total number of mammals that have ever existed in the relatively short time inferred from the fossil record along with the millions and millions of substantive molecular differences amongst all the present mammals as compared to the trillions of trillions of billions of bacteria and microscopic parasites in a single generation of these organisms and the scare few examples of one and two, and just the two or three known three step examples of adaptations and one begins to see how poorly supported the current theory really is.

[cabinintheforest]

Folks let me summe it up for you this is my last post ever on this forum:

 

 

1. Evolution is not scientific it has never been observed, most people who believe in evolution are atheistic old men.

2. Evolution leads to atheism and all kinds of poor morality, indeed evolutionists have no morals they believe they evolved off primitive apemen who went around raping eachother. - intelligent design has proven to us this was not the case. Advanced civilizations have always existed with high morals, great technologies and were much more advanced than we are today.

3. Evolution takes people away from God. materialistic evolution is a lie and lies are sin

4. The materialism of evolution takes people away from the spiritual reality of life it cuts people off from love.

5. evolution is a lie. it is false.

6. agnostics and honest atheist are starting to question evolution check out the OP

7. It is possible to support atheistic ID as this thread mentions. But after a while these atheists will convert to theism.

8. People on this thread are not true sceptics they do not even question evolution

9. I dont have a problem with some types of evolution but darwinian evolution is completey wrong.

10. evolution is a fairytale.

11. Intelligent design is a proven fact, go in nature to observe the great design. Intelligent design proponents are in good health.

12. Evolution is a hoax used to make money

13. Evolution has cause wars, disease, sinful behaviour and all kinds of immoral acts such as homosexuality

14. Intelligent design is a moral, scientific and proven fact. God is real.

15. 62% of the world believe in intelligent design.

16. Hindus, muslims and christians all support intelligent design.

17. Man did not evolve off apes. apes came after man

18. Humans have been on earth for billions of years just like they look now we have not evolved

19. evolution is a false belief people believing in darwinian materialistic evolution are depressed and get ill and most of them are creepy weird males you rarly see a female evolutionist.

20. evolution is a fairytale never observed not scientific. it will die out soon

 

 

Byebye. You have all been owned. Intelligent design wins.

 

macroevolution does not exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cypress]

Fine, I'll quote the post I linked to in my last post. Perhaps you'll read it this way.

 

 

I see there are a few creationist posters here from time to time. So here is a very small amount of the evidence for common ancestry with the rest of the apes:

 

Common ancestry is not inconsistent with teleological processes and therefore is not evidence for evolution (the idea that all observed diversity occurred by only natural processes). Common ancestry is an explanation for what we observe, evolution tries to explain how it occurred.

 

By examining ERVs, we can look at ancestral links between these populations. if we look at the presence of retroviruses within a population we can find when a particular group broke away from a different group due to the presence of the retroviruses within the group.

 

While it is true that recent retroviruses do appear in the genetic code, there is a question about how long they are likely to remain because non functional junk wastes cellular resources and is usually quickly removed. A major problem with the idea that our genome contains ancient disabled retroviruses is that modern molecular biology indicates that conserved portions of the genetic code are only conserved over long periods of time if they are functional. The obvious conclusion is that these presumed conserved portions that appear to be retroviruses are instead more likely noncoding functional instruction sets.

 

cabinintheforest asked for observable examples of evolutionary processes and Yoda offered this:

 

The corn field or the dog show.

 

The problem is that the corn field is an example of the power of teleological design processes of genetic engineers and the dog show is an example of the power of teleological artificial selection.

Edited November 4, 2010 by cypress

[Moontanman]

Folks let me summe it up for you this is my last post ever on this forum:

 

 

1. Evolution is not scientific it has never been observed, most people who believe in evolution are atheistic old men.

2. Evolution leads to atheism and all kinds of poor morality, indeed evolutionists have no morals they believe they evolved off primitive apemen who went around raping eachother. - intelligent design has proven to us this was not the case. Advanced civilizations have always existed with high morals, great technologies and were much more advanced than we are today.

3. Evolution takes people away from God. materialistic evolution is a lie and lies are sin

4. The materialism of evolution takes people away from the spiritual reality of life it cuts people off from love.

5. evolution is a lie. it is false.

6. agnostics and honest atheist are starting to question evolution check out the OP

7. It is possible to support atheistic ID as this thread mentions. But after a while these atheists will convert to theism.

8. People on this thread are not true sceptics they do not even question evolution

9. I dont have a problem with some types of evolution but darwinian evolution is completey wrong.

10. evolution is a fairytale.

11. Intelligent design is a proven fact, go in nature to observe the great design. Intelligent design proponents are in good health.

12. Evolution is a hoax used to make money

13. Evolution has cause wars, disease, sinful behaviour and all kinds of immoral acts such as homosexuality

14. Intelligent design is a moral, scientific and proven fact. God is real.

15. 62% of the world believe in intelligent design.

16. Hindus, muslims and christians all support intelligent design.

17. Man did not evolve off apes. apes came after man

18. Humans have been on earth for billions of years just like they look now we have not evolved

19. evolution is a false belief people believing in darwinian materialistic evolution are depressed and get ill and most of them are creepy weird males you rarly see a female evolutionist.

20. evolution is a fairytale never observed not scientific. it will die out soon

 

 

Byebye. You have all been owned. Intelligent design wins.

 

macroevolution does not exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Yes! you are so correct, we let an idiot drag us down to his level and then beat us to death with experience. On a good note this is not because we are idiots but because we like to assume a poster is really looking for clues not full of it.

[ydoaPs]

obvious troll is now obvious

[cypress]

Until you all worked him into a tizzy he had a handful of reasonable points, especially in his opening couple of posts.

[Moontanman]

Until you all worked him into a tizzy he had a handful of reasonable points, especially in his opening couple of posts.

 

 

It's all that ydoaP guys fault, he did it...

[ydoaPs]

Until you all worked him into a tizzy he had a handful of reasonable points, especially in his opening couple of posts.

LALALALALALALA is not a reasonable point. 'SHOW ME A VIDEO OF A MONKEY EVOLVING INTO A HUMAN' is not only unreasonable, but shows complete ignorance of what evolution actually is.

[cypress]

It's all that ydoaP guys fault, he did it...

 

I'll carry his side forward, go ahead and address a couple of the points I made. I believe that in another post you claimed it was a demonstrable fact that evolution (natural processes explains all observed diversity) and common descent was true. Here I have put a couple of holes through your unsupported opinion. If it is the fact you claim it is, you should have no trouble pointing out my errors.

 

LALALALALALALA is not a reasonable point. 'SHOW ME A VIDEO OF A MONKEY EVOLVING INTO A HUMAN' is not only unreasonable, but shows complete ignorance of what evolution actually is.

 

 

Right that would be part of where he was in a tizzy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I doubt you can prove that NFL does not apply to evolutionary searches, but it would not change the argument because thus far every successful evolutionary search offered has teleological components so you would first have to offer a search routine that does not make use of information imported by the designer

Part of the assumptions of the NFL is that the fitness function cannot change in response to changes in the organism. (Or whatever it is we're simulating.) The fitness function can change independently of the organism and NFL will still hold, but not otherwise. These assumptions are required to prove the No Free Lunch theorems true.

 

However, evolution allows for the fitness functions to change in response to changes in the organism. For example, if my organism moves to a new environment because of a mutation (say it moves to a different part of the intestines because of a small change in how it attaches to the intestinal wall), the traits required for fitness can change drastically, and so the fitness function changes.

 

Hence, the No Free Lunch theorems do not apply, and there isn't a mathematical reason why evolutionary searches cannot be faster than random walk without using imported information.

 

When you consider the small estimated total number of mammals that have ever existed in the relatively short time inferred from the fossil record along with the millions and millions of substantive molecular differences amongst all the present mammals as compared to the trillions of trillions of billions of bacteria and microscopic parasites in a single generation of these organisms and the scare few examples of one and two, and just the two or three known three step examples of adaptations and one begins to see how poorly supported the current theory really is.

Hmm. Well, we're talking about several different things here. There's common ancestry, which is part of (or rather, an extension of) evolutionary theory, and which can be demonstrated without knowledge of how the changes accumulate. (Darwin operated without knowledge of genetics, for example.) Now, there's also theory that explains how we believe those changes occur -- natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, mutation, gene duplication, and so on.

 

What we've explored so far really only scratches the surface of these mechanisms. Exaptation, for example, explains many complex functions, but it's hard to observe: first you have to fully understand the function of some biological system, then see how it was mutated slightly to serve a new function. I believe bacterial flagella, once researched, ended up being an example of this, but it took quite a bit of work to see it.

 

Exaptation is hard to observe particularly because small, unimportant adaptations can end up being coopted to make major changes. For example, Lenski (due to various experiments) postulates that there was an intermediate mutation that made it easier for citrate to be metabolized. That intermediate adaptation was not originally noticed because it provided little or no difference in the major functions of the bacteria, but it later allowed a mutation to begin citrate metabolization. Mutations like these could easily have occurred in the E. coli without being detected, so further research is needed.

 

Furthermore, we must consider that the E. coli were not in an environment where the fitness function changed very much, or at all. They have stayed in the same medium, under the same conditions, for thousands of generations. As I mentioned above, the NFL theorems cease to apply when the fitness functions can change -- but the bacteria in Lenski's experiment have nowhere to go to experience new environments and selection pressures. They can't mutate and suddenly find themselves struggling to survive in their new environment, or accidentally put off a chemical that attracts a predator, or whatever.

 

So: Lenski showed that interesting mutations can happen. We have a long way to go from Lenski. Let's not draw hasty conclusions just yet -- evolutionary theory still has some tricks up its sleeves.

[swansont]

Those of us that can read can see you are lying right now. You're not fooling anyone.

 

Too bad you can not read. You are the one who has resorted to lieing of course that's no problem for you becuase you do not believe in morals.

 

!

Moderator Note

This will cease, right now. You can and should point out where someone is in error, but accusations of lying and other personal attacks aren't going to fly

[immortal]

cypress, on 4 November 2010 - 08:06 AM, said:

 

When you consider the small estimated total number of mammals that have ever existed in the relatively short time inferred from the fossil record along with the millions and millions of substantive molecular differences amongst all the present mammals as compared to the trillions of trillions of billions of bacteria and microscopic parasites in a single generation of these organisms and the scare few examples of one and two, and just the two or three known three step examples of adaptations and one begins to see how poorly supported the current theory really is.

 

 

Well one reason for the increased rate of evolution in mammals is given through Wilson's hypothesis it says that there is an internal pressure in mammals which forces them to interact with the environment in rather different ways and there by increasing the fixation of alleles through out the population. So the argument that only the rate of occurences of mutations determine the rate of evolution of organisms is not true. This internal pressure in mammals is linked to large brain sizes in mammals.

 

But once Cultural evolution kicked in the internal pressure in mammals reduced and the biological evolution was in almost in a statis has the internal pressure was resolved very fastly with the development of memes.

 

Why we needed Punctuated Equillibruim if both Palaeontologists and geneticists agreed with each other. Palaeontologists argue that there is a sudden burst of mutations followed by a period of statis. Both of them explain very well about the period of statis but the question is why there is a sudden burst of mutations which give rise to random forms when geneticsists have observed only gradual mutations in the genome and how it can be coupled with the genomic or the molecular changes in the organism. Is it impossible to couple molecular evolution --> to microevolution --> to macroevolution with the current scientific data or if it is'nt then how the new synthesis might look like. Most evolutionary biologists will agree that we need new theory here.

 

One more thing is that if we rewind the tape of evolution and run it again it is very unlikely that we are going to see the same present identical forms, in the same way if an experimenter tries to repeat the experiments of an another biologist it is very unlikely that he will see that the bacteria under examination will use the same or identical pathway or design solution to obtain a specific function. Now the conclusion is that we can only see evolution in action but we can not see that evolution by natural selection will always come up with the same design solution. So as the other member said it is very diificult to see exaptation. We can not completely or fully explain how all the diversity that we can see evolved with in the geologic time line we can only make speculations of it. In that case fossils only shows us when these designs got accumulated through the history of geology but it does'nt shows us the pathway on how the designs aroused in the first place.

 

For example we can not say with total vigor that the bacterial flagella was a secondary adaptation of a priorly known form which gave the bacteria a survival advantage. We can only see the bacterial flagella but any comment on its origins will be speculation only.

Edited November 4, 2010 by immortal

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

This will cease, right now. You can and should point out where someone is in error, but accusations of lying and other personal attacks aren't going to fly

I'm of the school of thought that outright lying(and doing so badly in this case) is being in error. I even provided evidence that he was being disingenuous.

[Moontanman]

I'll carry his side forward, go ahead and address a couple of the points I made. I believe that in another post you claimed it was a demonstrable fact that evolution (natural processes explains all observed diversity) and common descent was true. Here I have put a couple of holes through your unsupported opinion. If it is the fact you claim it is, you should have no trouble pointing out my errors.

 

Where did you do this?

[cypress]

Part of the assumptions of the NFL is that the fitness function cannot change in response to changes in the organism. (Or whatever it is we're simulating.) The fitness function can change independently of the organism and NFL will still hold, but not otherwise. These assumptions are required to prove the No Free Lunch theorems true.

 

However, evolution allows for the fitness functions to change in response to changes in the organism. For example, if my organism moves to a new environment because of a mutation (say it moves to a different part of the intestines because of a small change in how it attaches to the intestinal wall), the traits required for fitness can change drastically, and so the fitness function changes.

 

Hence, the No Free Lunch theorems do not apply, and there isn't a mathematical reason why evolutionary searches cannot be faster than random walk without using imported information.

 

There is no need to debate applicability of NFL to evolutionary algorithms employing search routines that operate on changing fitness landscapes unless you can show a case of an evolutionary algorithm that is observed to generate information substantially faster than a blind search that does not incorporate teleological assistance externally.

 

 

Hmm. Well, we're talking about several different things here. There's common ancestry, which is part of (or rather, an extension of) evolutionary theory, and which can be demonstrated without knowledge of how the changes accumulate. (Darwin operated without knowledge of genetics, for example.)

 

Similarities can be demonstrated but common ancestry cannot. Instead it must be inferred based on observed similarities. I recall that for most arguments you frown on induction.

 

Now, there's also theory that explains how we believe those changes occur -- natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, mutation, gene duplication, and so on.

 

What we've explored so far really only scratches the surface of these mechanisms. Exaptation, for example, explains many complex functions, but it's hard to observe: first you have to fully understand the function of some biological system, then see how it was mutated slightly to serve a new function. I believe bacterial flagella, once researched, ended up being an example of this, but it took quite a bit of work to see it.

 

These arguments too rely on inductive approaches. Researchers have once again noted weak similarities to other molecular structures in inferring the source of some but not all the components falgella. but similarity can never tell us by what process these similarities arose. Here is an excellent discussion of the problems with the research you refer to.

 

Exaptation is hard to observe particularly because small, unimportant adaptations can end up being coopted to make major changes. For example, Lenski (due to various experiments) postulates that there was an intermediate mutation that made it easier for citrate to be metabolized. That intermediate adaptation was not originally noticed because it provided little or no difference in the major functions of the bacteria, but it later allowed a mutation to begin citrate metabolization. Mutations like these could easily have occurred in the E. coli without being detected, so further research is needed.

 

Lenski's research is not a case of exaptation, it seems to be a case of overexpression of an existing enzyme that performs the same function in both cases, but with overexpression it is able to compensate for the negative influence of oxygen. I would describe this as adaptation of existing function. If this and YodaPs' example of the single point insertion mutation leading to the nylase enzyme (note once again an enzyme rather than a case of exaptation of complex multipart molecular structures such as the components of flagellum) represents the fundamental step involved in evolutionary processes, then you should be able to point to a nearly contiguous string of stepwise pathways involving these kinds of steps. Unfortunately in all the research I have read, I have come across fewer than 10 total examples all fewer than 4 steps and from the sounds of things you can't do any better.

 

Furthermore, we must consider that the E. coli were not in an environment where the fitness function changed very much, or at all. They have stayed in the same medium, under the same conditions, for thousands of generations. As I mentioned above, the NFL theorems cease to apply when the fitness functions can change -- but the bacteria in Lenski's experiment have nowhere to go to experience new environments and selection pressures. They can't mutate and suddenly find themselves struggling to survive in their new environment, or accidentally put off a chemical that attracts a predator, or whatever.

 

These seem like little more than excuses intended to cover for the failure to identify examples of the lowest level predictions of evolutionary theory (the idea that all diversity is explained by known evolutionary processes in operation today). Mutation and selection adequately explains adaptation of existing populations of organisms and this explanation is observed, but it does not even begin to explain what is required to generate novel forms.

 

So: Lenski showed that interesting mutations can happen. We have a long way to go from Lenski. Let's not draw hasty conclusions just yet -- evolutionary theory still has some tricks up its sleeves.

 

We did not need Lenski's cultures to know that interesting mutations happen. The history of selective breading and more recently genetic engineering and acquired drug and pesticide resistance confirms that interesting mutations allow for adaptation. Lenski's work instead seems to confirm that there is a limit to what natural processes can accomplish.

[immortal]

This reminds me of the Shakespeare's problem. A monkey is given a typewriter and it is asked to type the word SHAKESPEARE consisting of 11 alphabets. Now if the monkey starts typing randomly it is very unlikely that it is going to type the word SHAKESPEARE at one go or at one single attempt but if we intoduce a certain constraint that if the right alphabets are in the right places then the slots will be set to default and the monkey continues to randomly type for the remaining slotted locations. For example: if the monkey type it as

 

S G I M E Z H U L R F

 

Then the alphabets S, E and R are the right alphabets at the right position so we keep them up and try to jumble the rest. So it is very much likely that we are going to type the word SHAKESPEARE given enough time. Hence evolution works by accumulating good designs and it is therefore a better search routine than a random one. This example might be misleading it looks like as though evolution has some predestined purpose to get the word Shakespeare it was just an example to show that how selection pressures operate to produce macro forms by accumulating good designs.

 

The question of whether this mechanism was sufficient to explain all diversity on earth with in the geological time line is a difficult thing to answer without doing some research on this. If it is shown that current mechanisms satisfily explains the origin of the diversity on earth with in the geological time line then there may be only a slight but difficult problem in itself to show how those complex structures aroused using natural selection in darwanian terms but it will certainly upheld evolution by natural selection has the right explanation. If it is not able to show then your need for teleological assistence will come into play but this model itself is not going to explain any thing about how these diversities appeared. We might have to look for an alternative way to move forward.

 

In the above example we can get snapshots of how the word Shakespeare appeared for example at one point in time it can look like

S G I M E Z H U L R F

 

it may transform into this after some time

S Q U K E W P J A R B

 

Or at the present moment to this

S H A K E S P E A R E

 

It looks quite easy in this example to see how invidual snapshots got diversified or took pathways and also it was easy to see the selection pressures that were there at different times. With this it is easy to show in steps how it evolved into the present form. But considering the complex multi component structures that we see in biocosms and with out a possible simulation of the pathways it took to arrive at this point from another prior structures it is valid to say that it is very difficult to explain the origins of these structures on the basis of evolution by natural selection in Darwinian terms.

 

So irrespective of the result or the conclusions of the research we need new theories here and what that theory might be, we need to be patient and look out for the latest trends in this field

Edited November 6, 2010 by immortal

[John Cuthber]

I think the stuff about evolution is irrelevant.

If you had an entity with the intelligence and ability to design life then, from a practical point of view you could call that entity God.

If you believe in design you have to believe in a designer and it's difficult to see how that designer would differ from the general definition of God.

 

I'd just like to ask Cabininthewoods one simple question.

If you had a life threatening infection caused by a penicillin resistant bacterium would you be happy just to take penicillin?

If so then you would die, if not then you accept evolution as fact.

Which is it?

[michel123456]

Cabin has been banned.

[dragonstar57]

Folks let me summe it up for you this is my last post ever on this forum:

 

 

1. Evolution is not scientific it has never been observed, most people who believe in evolution are atheistic old men.

1.opinion: i think atheists are more likely to be teens but as i have no hard data i wont state it as a fact.

2. Evolution leads to atheism and all kinds of poor morality, indeed evolutionists have no morals they believe they evolved off primitive apemen who went around raping eachother. - intelligent design has proven to us this was not the case.

 

2.a. the results evolution has on society are irrelevant

]just because evolution(which does not say got is not real) has atheist believers does not mean that it is not real and athirst doesn't mean immoral.

 

Advanced civilizations have always existed with high morals, great technologies and were much more advanced than we are today.

 

2.b.citing Atlantis helps nothing humans are at their most advanced state that they have ever been(technologically any way)

3. Evolution takes people away from God. materialistic evolution is a lie and lies are sin

3.*sighs in frustration* this place is for science the "god doesn't like is not evidence"

4. The materialism of evolution takes people away from the spiritual reality of life it cuts people off from love.

5. that is a opinion

and what is "spiritual reality"?

5. evolution is a lie. it is false.

5. even if there were no evidence for evolution you can't say this as you can't prove it wrong

6. agnostics and honest atheist are starting to question evolution check out the OP

7. op means "original poster" thats you. you are not a resource that i would consider credible

7. It is possible to support atheistic ID as this thread mentions. But after a while these atheists will convert to theism.

no it imposable to support id the only thing you can do is to say that we did not see it happen and present a "straw man"

8. People on this thread are not true sceptics they do not even question evolution

8.you can't expect us to recreate every experiment the scientific communality proves or disproves an experiment.

9. I dont have a problem with some types of evolution but darwinian evolution is completey wrong.

9.straw man, no one ever said it was and its not

10. evolution is a fairytale.

10.opinion but its ironic that an creationist would use the term "fairy tale"

11. Intelligent design is a proven fact, go in nature to observe the great design. Intelligent design proponents are in good health.

 

11.a. no its not a fact

11. b. nonsense i wouldn't usually say something so simply but... it just is.... what more is there to say?

12. Evolution is a hoax used to make money

who is making money?

13. Evolution has cause wars, disease, sinful behaviour and all kinds of immoral acts such as homosexuality

13.a. religion causes wars.

13.b. it explains disease it does not cause it

13.c. "sinful behavior" this is just religious nonsense

13.d. homosexuality is not caused by evolution

 

14. Intelligent design is a moral, scientific and proven fact. God is real.

14.you believe because because you want to believe.

fact does not have to be moral

and god and id if far from fact.

 

15. 62% of the world believe in intelligent design.

16. Hindus, muslims and christians all support intelligent design.

15. can you cite this please?

and even if its true its meaningless

17. Man did not evolve off apes. apes came after man

17.straw man

evolution simply states that ape and man have a common ape like ancestor

which has some serious evidence

18. Humans have been on earth for billions of years just like they look now we have not evolved

18.your evidence?

19. evolution is a false belief people believing in darwinian materialistic evolution are depressed and get ill and most of them are creepy weird males you rarly see a female evolutionist.

19.a. Darwin evolution is not accepted any more

19.b. evidence? statistic? proof of any kind?

no?

EPIC FAIL

19.C not relevant to the validity of your so called "argument" but your spelling is quite poor (hypocritical i know) and many "words" you use you say are not even words

20. evolution is a fairytale never observed not scientific. it will die out soon

20.a. it has been observed just not directly

20.b. creationism is no more scientific

Byebye. You have all been owned. Intelligent design wins.

macroevolution does not exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fact: little changes can add up to be big differences.

so macro-evolution

does exist

[michel123456]

Helloo-ho. Cabin cannot answer. Although I disagree completely with his opinion(s), it is not fair to continue this thread since he cannot answer.

 

Point 1 of dragon's made me laugh.

[cypress]

This reminds me of the Shakespeare's problem. A monkey is given a typewriter and it is asked to type the word SHAKESPEARE consisting of 11 alphabets. Now if the monkey starts typing randomly it is very unlikely that it is going to type the word SHAKESPEARE at one go or at one single attempt but if we intoduce a certain constraint that if the right alphabets are in the right places then the slots will be set to default and the monkey continues to randomly type for the remaining slotted locations.

 

The critical point bolded is the failure of this illustration because you have just inserted teleological intelligence into the process.

 

The question of whether this mechanism was sufficient to explain all diversity on earth with in the geological time line is a difficult thing to answer without doing some research on this. If it is shown that current mechanisms satisfily explains the origin of the diversity on earth with in the geological time line then there may be only a slight but difficult problem in itself to show how those complex structures aroused using natural selection in darwanian terms but it will certainly upheld evolution by natural selection has the right explanation. If it is not able to show then your need for teleological assistence will come into play but this model itself is not going to explain any thing about how these diversities appeared. We might have to look for an alternative way to move forward.

 

Experiments in molecular biology indicate that the stepwise model of evolution accumulating favorable modifications is not happening. Trillions of trillions of organisms have been exposed to selection pressure and thus far there have been no examples of multistep pathways greater than three steps observed. Even the couple of three step examples included steps that were not favorable. One can point to several single and two step mutations that provide some adaptation advantage but do not progress any further. The illustration is interesting but it does not describe what is actually going on.

 

It looks quite easy in this example to see how invidual snapshots got diversified or took pathways and also it was easy to see the selection pressures that were there at different times. With this it is easy to show in steps how it evolved into the present form. But considering the complex multi component structures that we see in biocosms and with out a possible simulation of the pathways it took to arrive at this point from another prior structures it is valid to say that it is very difficult to explain the origins of these structures on the basis of evolution by natural selection in Darwinian terms.

 

This statement mischaracterizes the issue. Molecular studies seem to demonstrate that functional pathways don't exist at all, rather all stepwise routes involve unfavorable mutations that render natural selection incapable of preserving the unfavorable modifications that are later needed to generate new functional molecular components and cellular function controls. Here is a report on one such study of the salmonella bacterium whereby the researchers employed a technique to generate mutations anywhere and in the genome. They found that regardless of the mutation each and every mutation had the same small negative impact on fitness of 0.5%. With no selection advantage the model you described becomes impotent because if one wants to posit that the accumulation of many mutations can bring about new function, then one has to maintain that the accumulation of negative impacts eventually makes positive and this is counter to your model.

 

So irrespective of the result or the conclusions of the research we need new theories here and what that theory might be, we need to be patient and look out for the latest trends in this field

 

Correct. However while we continue to look for natural processes that are more capable than the ones identified and observed today, Genetic Engineers are racing ahead with teleological process that do explain observed diversity. I find it interesting that many people prefer to be blind of that reality.

[swansont]

The critical point bolded is the failure of this illustration because you have just inserted teleological intelligence into the process.

 

 

Oh, please. It's an analogy, and that step represents fitness. It shows the power of simple feedback rules combined with random inputs.

[cypress]

Oh, please. It's an analogy, and that step represents fitness. It shows the power of simple feedback rules combined with random inputs.

 

That a better and more accurate analogy is not offered that does not make use of teleology demonstrates the weakness of of the power of natural process to generate efficient search routines.

 

The elaborations contained in my previous post address this.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm

 

The teleological information was "we need an antenna that has these performance characteristics, regardless of how weird it looks" and the algorithm was allowed to generate whatever designs it could. The success of the evolutionary algorithm in producing antenna designs more efficient and compact than the man-made designs is telling. How could design information be provided by the designers if they did not know how to achieve the performance the evolutionary algorithm achieved?