A simple case for intelligent design

[leroy]

You're asking for textbooks and technical articles. These obviously aren't appropriate in a short reply format like RF.
If you're really interested just pick up a textbook or Evolutionary Biology magazine. Google the subject. There must be a thousand YouTube videos on the subject. Maybe you can take some Khan academy courses.
As Subduction Zone pointed out, however, you seem to lack even a basic knowledge of the subject, yet you're strongly opinionated about it.
Not among scientists or people familiar with the subject. The objections seem to come almost exclusively from those wedded to religious folklore.

That simply is wrong and missleadong,


This article describes the contrversy that we find the scientific community
hy-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn10

So the difference between you and I is that I provided a source supporting my position, I provided a source that shoes that evolution is controversial amoung scientists.

You claim that evolution is uncontroversially true, but you haven't provide any source nor evidence supporting your position

 

[leroy]

But by what mechanism? There is no alternative explanation known.
"Goddidit" is not an explanation of mechanism, it's an appeal to magic. You seem to be making a black or white error. Apparently you think that if you can poke holes in the ToE, the only other "explanation' must needs be magic -- with or without evidence.

Wrong for many reasons
1 one does not have to provide an alternative explanation, to conclude that a "theory" is controversial

2 alternative naturalistic models have been proposed and have succeeded the peer review process.

3 why is "God" not an alternative explanation? You have to justify your asertions

 

[leroy]

Thanks for the clarification. So you'd expect the complexity of an organism to be related to the length of the genome; to how much DNA an organism has?

In this context complexity is not about how much DNA you have but how much functional DNA you have. ( Sometimes called specified complexity)

An organism with genes that produce eyes is less complex than an organism with genes that produce eyes and ears.

 

[Polymath257]

That would be grate. Showing that random mutatios and natural selection tend to increase complexity would count as strong evidence

One difficulty, of course, is quantifying the notion of complexity. Then determining the role of mutation and selection on complexity requires many runs of the simulation. Here is a decent paper:

How evolution guides complexity

if you want to play with some of the parameters yourself, the program 'Polyworld' has become a standard.

Polyworld - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fossil record at most proves that we came from ancestral organisms , but it doesn't prove that random mutations and natural selection is responsible for that.

There is no "proof" in science. All one can do is to test and confirm or disprove theories. But confirmation is never "proof". Now you have demonstrated that you do not have a clue as to how science is done.

That your modus operandi, you claim to have evidence for your stuff, but you find excuses for not providing your sources.

Please, now you are being either dishonest or ignorant. I have provided evidence. You have demonstrated that you do not understand the concept. As you did at the start of this post. That is why I so often offer to go over the concept of evidence but for some strange reason creationists are afraid to discuss the topic. Then they demand evidence that they will not understand and will deny, as You have. If you learn what is and what is not evidence and how science is done then You can make those demands.

You claim that my sources are wrong but you don't explain why.

When was that article refuted? Care to provide the refutation?

Are you serious? You do not know how that piece of crap was shown to be worthless? By the way, the article is a nothing burger. There is nothing worthy of being refuted in it. It was dishonestly presented and the conclusions derived from it are incorrect. But if you admit your ignorance and apologize for using a poorly researched claim on your part I will gladly help you understand your error.

 

[Polymath257]

In this context complexity is not about how much DNA you have but how much functional DNA you have. ( Sometimes called specified complexity)

An organism with genes that produce eyes is less complex than an organism with genes that produce eyes and ears.

Good luck quantifying that. Is an organisms that produces simple eyes and ears more or less complex than one that produces complex eyes but no ears? How about complex ears but simple eyes?

As for 'specified complexity', how is that specified? Again, functional is a relative term, not an absolute one. Many things can be functional to some degree, depending on the situation and environment.

Furthermore, do you have any evidence that the DNA of the amoeba with record size genome is NOT functional?

 

[leroy]

There is no "proof" in science. All one can do is to test and confirm or disprove theories. But confirmation is never "proof". Now you have demonstrated that you do not have a clue as to how science is done.




Please, now you are being either dishonest or ignorant. I have provided evidence. You have demonstrated that you do not understand the concept. As you did at the start of this post. That is why I so often offer to go over the concept of evidence but for some strange reason creationists are afraid to discuss the topic. Then they demand evidence that they will not understand and will deny, as You have. If you learn what is and what is not evidence and how science is done then You can make those demands.



Are you serious? You do not know how that piece of crap was shown to be worthless? By the way, the article is a nothing burger. There is nothing worthy of being refuted in it. It was dishonestly presented and the conclusions derived from it are incorrect. But if you admit your ignorance and apologize for using a poorly researched claim on your part I will gladly help you understand your error.

And you are still unwilling to provide your sources and unwilling to explain why is my source wrong.

All you have is stupid wordgames .....ok don't Call it "proof" call it "conclusive evidence"

 

[leroy]

Good luck quantifying that. Is an organisms that produces simple eyes and ears more or less complex than one that produces complex eyes but no ears? How about complex ears but simple eyes?

As for 'specified complexity', how is that specified? Again, functional is a relative term, not an absolute one. Many things can be functional to some degree, depending on the situation and environment.

Furthermore, do you have any evidence that the DNA of the amoeba with record size genome is NOT functional?

Playing semantics? Is that your strategy?

Just prove that evolution (as I define it) is true, provide an article or something that proves evolution beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Polymath257]

Playing semantics? Is that your strategy?

Just prove that evolution (as I define it) is true, provide an article or something that proves evolution beyond reasonable doubt.

No, it is NOT semantics. It is defining the notions involved to a degree that allows them to be studied.

I did provide an article showing how natural selection and complexity are correlated in computer models. Just what you asked for.

 

[leroy]

One difficulty, of course, is quantifying the notion of complexity. Then determining the role of mutation and selection on complexity requires many runs of the simulation. Here is a decent paper:

How evolution guides complexity

ia

Your article proves my point, the article sumerices the controversy that excists in the scientific community on whether is evolution by natural selection is responsible for the complexity and diversity of life.


I am not saying that evolution by random mutations and natural selection is wrong, all I am saying is that it is a controversial "theory" and scientist (including the authors of your paper) would agree with me.

Only fanatic and angry atheist from YouTube and forums this k that evolution is uncontroversially true

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good luck quantifying that. Is an organisms that produces simple eyes and ears more or less complex than one that produces complex eyes but no ears? How about complex ears but simple eyes?

As for 'specified complexity', how is that specified? Again, functional is a relative term, not an absolute one. Many things can be functional to some degree, depending on the situation and environment.

Furthermore, do you have any evidence that the DNA of the amoeba with record size genome is NOT functional?

Just to elaborate the point a bit. One must be careful in biology and realize that "some" is not "all". Some early experiments on mice where non-coding DNA was removed showed no harmful effects. Now one could jump to the incorrect conclusion that all non-coding DNA was "junk". At best it showed that some of it may be of no immediate use. A more recent one found a crucial part of junk DNA, that is if you are a male:

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-non-coding-dna-genitals-youre-born.html
And besides the immediate effects one must remember that in evolution a lot of new traits arise from gene duplication. Entire genes are copied and that way critical genes can evolve new functions while one copy does not evolve, allowing the critical function to go on without interruption. A good amount of "junk" DNA may be waiting in the wings, so to speak.

The strange mixture that is non-coding DNA does make sense from an evolutionary point of view, from the creationist view much of it would have to be junk and that is a problem for them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your article proves my point, the article sumerices the controversy that excists in the scientific community on whether is evolution by natural selection is responsible for the complexity and diversity of life.


I am not saying that evolution by random mutations and natural selection is wrong, all I am saying is that it is a controversial "theory" and scientist (including the authors of your paper) would agree with me.

Only fanatic and angry atheist from YouTube and forums this k that evolution is uncontroversially true

Scientists discussing how life evolved does not make it controversial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you are still unwilling to provide your sources and unwilling to explain why is my source wrong.

All you have is stupid wordgames .....ok don't Call it "proof" call it "conclusive evidence"

when you demonstrate that I will not be wasting my time I will gladly do so. Why is it so hard for you to debate honestly and properly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Playing semantics? Is that your strategy?

Just prove that evolution (as I define it) is true, provide an article or something that proves evolution beyond reasonable doubt.

You tend to use incorrect definitions. You won't find proof beyond reasonable doubt in one single article, especially for one that will not let himself learn.

 

[leroy]

Scientists discussing how life evolved does not make it controversial.

Scientists discussing different possible explanations for the complexity of life, makes it controversial

 

[leroy]

You tend to use incorrect definitions. You won't find proof beyond reasonable doubt in one single article, especially for one that will not let himself learn.

Amazingly you are still finding excuses for not providing evidence for your claims

 

[leroy]

when you demonstrate that I will not be wasting my time I will gladly do so. Why is it so hard for you to debate honestly and properly?

when you demonstrate that I will not be wasting my time I will gladly do so. Why is it so hard for you to debate honestly and properly?

Well perhaps there is and external obvesver who is open minded and worthy of your time, who is interested in your evidence.

Why don't you provide a source for the benefit of this external observers?

 

[leroy]

No, it is NOT semantics. It is defining the notions involved to a degree that allows them to be studied.

I did provide an article showing how natural selection and complexity are correlated in computer models. Just what you asked for.

Your articles sumerices the controversy, the authors of the article are on on side, they grant that evolution is controversial

 

[Jose Fly]

I am reject the idea that random mutations and natural selection where responsable for such an event. Do you have conclusive evidence that suggests otherwise?

I'll just forget how you completely bailed on our earlier discussion in this thread.....

Every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the same is true of the past.

What other non-evolutionary mechanism are you proposing?

 

[Jose Fly]

You claim that evolution is uncontroversially true, but you haven't provide any source nor evidence supporting your position

Seriously? Evolution is "true" because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes.