Holes in Darwin's Theory?

[Ouroboros]

This has to be one of the wimpiest response I've ever seen on RF. :slap:

That said, your posts are still fascinating in their own little way. Keep 'em coming.

It's interesting that fundamentalists can see any validity in the situation when a few scientists deny evolution then evolution must be (or could be wrong), but at the same time reject any Christian denying literalism and coming to the same conclusion about literalism. If some Christians can merge the understanding of evolution and faith, then that should be just as much evidence for literalism being false as any non-evolutionist scientist.

 

[johnhanks]

I am persuaded you also know the names of scientists studying biology who reject evolution.

You've posted a few (same few, repeatedly) for us in the past. What you have signally failed to do is post the names of any biologists who reject evolution on grounds unconnected with religious belief.

Who is being disingenuous here?

I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I have found when one checks out these lists is that they can often been misleading whereas any question about one aspect of evolution puts that person on a "doubt" or "deny" list. For example, if I say that I have some questions regarding the validity of random genetic drift (which I don't, btw), then I may end up on a "doubt" or "deny" list.

I have not known many to be like that. On the contrary, I have known many (especially biologist) who are willing to answer and clarify questions and do not lump people into doubters or deniers for having a question.

So you admit that you want a list simply to pick it apart. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised. I think many evolutionist propagandists share that idea. "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." And attack they do. Little wonder so few scientists dare raise publicly their private doubts about the ToE.

Do you have confidence in your list? It sounds as if you don't.

The efforts of evolutionists to silence dissent have been documented in recent years and are available on the Internet to those interested in investigating the facts. Of course, the propagandists for the TOE will loudly deny this. but I think it is best to check the facts for oneself.

Where? When? Who?
The Ben Stein movie was thoroughly debunked and proven to be hogwash.

I also wonder if people who use the term "evolutionist" are aware how the term in interpreted. For instance, although biology is an area of my college major, I am not a "germist" or a "cellist."

 

[McBell]

[I also wonder if people who use the term "evolutionist" are aware how the term in interpreted. For instance, although biology is an area of my college major, I am not a "germist" or a "cellist."

I think it is intended to be an insult.
Though to be honest with you, I do not recall the term "evolutionist" being used by someone who actually has at least a high school understanding of what evolution is.

And to be quite honest with you, it is rather difficult to be insulted by a word being used by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it is intended to be an insult.
Though to be honest with you, I do not recall the term "evolutionist" being used by someone who actually has at least a high school understanding of what evolution is.

And to be quite honest with you, it is rather difficult to be insulted by a word being used by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

That is why I asked, and why I do not take it to be an insult. By saying "evolutionist" one unknowingly admits to many things (it's almost on par with admiting what you know about Meatloaf, Nine Inch Nails, and Chiasm if you were to refer to one of those bands as a them or they). Understanding the scientific method, the difference between hypothesis, theory, and law, and what exactly a theory and law is are just a few things that are, by default, admited when one uses the term "evolutionist."
It's just silly to say someone is a "gravitationist" because they know an object dropped will fall towards the ground, or a "plate techtonicist" for saying there are large plates that grind against each other to cause earthquakes, or even an "electricitist" because someone is able to wire a house. But yet this "evolutionist" lingers on, even though there is no actual scientific term of "evolutionist" and no other equivalent term for people who know about the many other "just theories" that exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Everyone knows that the correct spelling is evilutionist.

 

[Skwim]

Were it not for those who deny evolution and instead champion Biblical creation, our creationist friends, I seriously doubt "evolutionist" would have made it into the dictionary. In fact, I strongly suspect the word was the invention of creationists so as to describe their enemy. But that's just fine with me. Far better to be regarded as an evolutionists,

and labeled as such, than be thought a creationist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Were it not for those who deny evolution and instead champion Biblical creation, our creationist friends, I seriously doubt "evolutionist" would have made it into the dictionary. In fact, I strongly suspect the word was the invention of creationists so as to describe their enemy.

True. The term "evolutionist" mostly serves for the purpose to oppose the term "creationist". Either you "believe in creation" (creationist) or you "believe in evolution" (evolutionist) kind'a deal.

The problem I see with that though is that if someone who believes in theistic evolution, then evolution is the method with which God then would have created, i.e. creation = evolution.

 

[Skwim]

True. The term "evolutionist" mostly serves for the purpose to oppose the term "creationist". Either you "believe in creation" (creationist) or you "believe in evolution" (evolutionist) kind'a deal.

The problem I see with that though is that if someone who believes in theistic evolution, then evolution is the method with which God then would have created, i.e. creation = evolution.

And because theistic evolution comes in so many flavors I'm willing to let those who espouse it to duke out the differences, leaving the unmodified "evolution" to stand for strict biological evolution. In effect, "theistic evolution " ≠ evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True. The term "evolutionist" mostly serves for the purpose to oppose the term "creationist". Either you "believe in creation" (creationist) or you "believe in evolution" (evolutionist) kind'a deal.

FWIW, Stephen Jay Gould frequently used the term "evolutionist" in his writings. He used it in the sense of a scientist who studies evolution, not simply someone who believes that evolutionary theory is correct.

 

[Ouroboros]

FWIW, Stephen Jay Gould frequently used the term "evolutionist" in his writings. He used it in the sense of a scientist who studies evolution, not simply someone who believes that evolutionary theory is correct.

Good point.

 

[Jehmut]

The thing that begs the most discussion is the genetic code in DNA. There is evidence of intelligence there.

The odds of these codes strands just being haphazard and by chance is a big leap of faith.

The "code" you refer to is not the sort of "code" that requires an intelligence to design it; natural selection takes care of that perfectly well. The "odds" are precisely what they ought to be — to include "odds" in this discussion strikes me as peculiar, frankly, as it has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of whether DNA was "designed" intelligently or not.

 

[johnhanks]

The "code" you refer to is not the sort of "code" that requires an intelligence to design it; natural selection takes care of that perfectly well. The "odds" are precisely what they ought to be — to include "odds" in this discussion strikes me as peculiar, frankly, as it has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of whether DNA was "designed" intelligently or not.

Absolutely. If TTG had by necessity to code for leucine, and no other outcome would have worked, then it would be appropriate to talk about the very long odds for that having come about by chance. But it didn't: the code is to all intents and purposes an arbitrary one, and had things panned out differently TTG could just as well have ended up standing for serine or methionine.

There is a popular puzzle consisting of a crossword with every light occupied by a number between 1 and 26 representing a letter; given a couple of the pairings, the user has to work out the words. For any one of these puzzles the odds of that particular number-to-letter correspondence having come about are 1 in 403291461126605635584000000 (I think - I'm no mathematician), but no-one would regard the existence of that code as similarly improbable, or as requiring intelligence - it could be produced by pulling numbers and letters randomly from two opaque bags. The genetic code is just such a system.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Absolutely. If TTG had by necessity to code for leucine, and no other outcome would have worked, then it would be appropriate to talk about the very long odds for that having come about by chance. But it didn't: the code is to all intents and purposes an arbitrary one, and had things panned out differently TTG could just as well have ended up standing for serine or methionine.

There is a popular puzzle consisting of a crossword with every light occupied by a number between 1 and 26 representing a letter; given a couple of the pairings, the user has to work out the words. For any one of these puzzles the odds of that particular number-to-letter correspondence having come about are 1 in 403291461126605635584000000 (I think - I'm no mathematician), but no-one would regard the existence of that code as similarly improbable, or as requiring intelligence - it could be produced by pulling numbers and letters randomly from two opaque bags. The genetic code is just such a system.

You should also point out that the code is redundant. Meaning that in the case of leucine it's not just UUA that produces it, but UUG, CUU, CUC, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

The "code" you refer to is not the sort of "code" that requires an intelligence to design it; natural selection takes care of that perfectly well. The "odds" are precisely what they ought to be — to include "odds" in this discussion strikes me as peculiar, frankly, as it has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of whether DNA was "designed" intelligently or not.

The fundamental problem with the creationist's probability argument is in making
the assumptions for calculating the odds. They don't have enuf info to even begin.
- How many evolutionary pathways lead to a particular genetic sequence?
- How many individuals are involved?
- How much time is there?
The only probabilistic arguments I've seen so far make simplistic self serving assumptions, which don't
take any of the above into account. I won't say that it cannot be done, but it just hasn't yet (AFAIK).

 

[idea]

"Artificial selection" - Artificial selection - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is ID. Farmers have used ID for generations and generations... Any time an animal preferentially chooses a mate they have propagated ID.

The thing that interests me is not the "information" stored within DNA, but the existence of "intelligence" within species. Anything can store information (rocks store info about the magnetic field of the earth, mountains store info about plate tectonics, matter stores info about all the physical laws of the universe)...

intelligence is much more than information.... the ability to think, and act (rather than just be "acted upon"), the ability to create - the ability to be aware of our surroundings, and aware of our self - this is the magic of life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Artificial selection" - Artificial selection - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is ID. Farmers have used ID for generations and generations... Any time an animal preferentially chooses a mate they have propagated ID.

The thing that interests me is not the "information" stored within DNA, but the existence of "intelligence" within species. Anything can store information (rocks store info about the magnetic field of the earth, mountains store info about plate tectonics, matter stores info about all the physical laws of the universe)...

intelligence is much more than information.... the ability to think, and act (rather than just be "acted upon"), the ability to create - the ability to be aware of our surroundings, and aware of our self - this is the magic of life.

Except selective breeding is just that, and not intelligent design. It is not the animal choosing, but the farmers who choose which animals to breed to produce the desired qualities in the offspring. No god, no magic, only humans.
Also there is no intelligence involved with a rock or fired ceramics that locks in the position and strength of the magnetic field. It is a chemical reaction among the components of the object that are directly influenced by the magnetic field. Again no god, magic, or designer needed.

 

[idea]

Except selective breeding is just that, and not intelligent design. It is not the animal choosing, but the farmers who choose which animals to breed to produce the desired qualities in the offspring. No god, no magic, only humans.
Also there is no intelligence involved with a rock or fired ceramics that locks in the position and strength of the magnetic field. It is a chemical reaction among the components of the object that are directly influenced by the magnetic field. Again no god, magic, or designer needed.

Sorry, I don't think you got the point of what I wrote - which was "intelligence" is much more than "information". I agree that there is nothing magical about information. It the existence of "intelligence" that makes life interesting.

 

[McBell]

"Artificial selection" - Artificial selection - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is ID. Farmers have used ID for generations and generations... Any time an animal preferentially chooses a mate they have propagated ID.

The thing that interests me is not the "information" stored within DNA, but the existence of "intelligence" within species. Anything can store information (rocks store info about the magnetic field of the earth, mountains store info about plate tectonics, matter stores info about all the physical laws of the universe)...

intelligence is much more than information.... the ability to think, and act (rather than just be "acted upon"), the ability to create - the ability to be aware of our surroundings, and aware of our self - this is the magic of life.

Since "artificial selection" is nothing more than another term for selective breeding, who does the ID crowd claim is doing the selecting?

 

[Silentium]

Would not intelligent design be possible? If not, why not?

Intelligent design attempts to answer the question they are asking with itself.

You are saying this is so complex that something complex had to create it and that something being more complex must have needed something more complex and then you continue endlessly unless you abandon your original objection and state something this complex needs no creator which invalidates your entire argument to begin with. Its fractal at best.