Intelligent Design???

[blü 2]

I would like to see your evidence, how do you know that the flagellum can evolve on a step by step basis (one mutation at the time) where each mutation is betefitial.

The court in the Dover case was persuaded by the evidence before it, which is on the net eg >here<).

Or you could start with the >outline in Wikipedia<.

But as I remarked earlier, 'irreducible complexity' can never be shown to mean more than 'presently unexplained'.

And 'presently unexplained' is incapable of implying the supernatural, not least because the concept of the supernatural is incoherent when applied to reality.

And there are no extant examples of purported 'irreducible complexity' anyway.

 

[Bear Wild]

I believe I acknowledged the variation in Pantheism, The central concept remains a form of naturalism, but I believe your stretching the definition. Adding the word 'religious' is to general a use of the word. Pantheism does probably overlap panentheism in the descriptions and testimonies you provided.

I would not disagree that there is some overlap although when some of these philosophers were describing their ideas they did not make that distinction so I included them in the presentations. I do not understand you point about the word religious. Can you explain what you mean by "adding the word 'religious' is to general a use of the word.
I was just trying to show the range of "pantheist" views which range from religious naturalism to a form of theism including one philosopher which might be better described as panentheism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then I gotta ask....why start the thread? ID creationism is of no consequence whatsoever, so what's the point?

Some have indicated that they do not fully understand the issue, and this deals with them. Also, I believe it is necessary to continue the up front dialogue that specifies the scientific criteria for the consideration of any theory, hypothesis or theorem to be valid is worthwhile to bring the argument always in their faces. I ave found new articles still being published particularly misusing statistics and probability in their efforts to gain recognition of ID as science, and I will address these in detail. Since statistics and probability is a difficult subject for layman, and put this misuse up front and explain to all why it is an egregious use of math to justify an agenda..

 

[Jose Fly]

Some have indicated that they do not fully understand the issue, and this deals with them.

If you don't mind me asking, who doesn't understand?

I ave found new articles still being published particularly misusing statistics and probability in their efforts to gain recognition of ID as science, and I will address these in detail.

Web articles or peer-reviewed articles?

Since statistics and probability is a difficult subject for layman, and put this misuse up front and explain to all why it is an egregious use of math to justify an agenda..

Creationists have been doing that since....well....they've been creationists.

 

[leroy]

.”

Ok, so how do you go from something that looks like A to B, where A is any of the pictures, and B is the next?

The truth is that nobody knows, perhaps the path is irreducible complex, perhaps it isn’t, future discoveries will reveal the answer.



Behe wouldn’t deny that the flagellum evolved from simpler machines, and he wouldn’t deny that all flagellums have a common ancestor, what he would deny is that you can get them by random genetic changes + natural selection

Nothing in the article is in conflict with what Behe claims

 

[leroy]

These remain vague assertions that do not answer the requirement of scientific methods to propose a falsifiable hypothesis.

the proposals and premises offered by the Discovery Institute do not fit the criteria of science, and 'proven wrong or correct' are not scientific criteria, they represent assertions without grounds from the layman's perspective.

Again . . . You need to support these assertions with published scientific references that support a hypothesis that may be falsified 'positively' that what you cited cannot occur naturally,

Scientific method

T

he scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1 Make an observation.

·2 Ask a question.

· 3 Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.

· 4 Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.

· 5 Test the prediction.

·6 Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

At this point Behe (and neodarwinists) are in point 4 regarding the evolution of the flagellum. Creationists are following the scientific method, it is just that they haven’t completed the process. Time will say if they are correct or wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so how do you go from something that looks like A to B, where A is any of the pictures, and B is the next?

The truth is that nobody knows, perhaps the path is irreducible complex, perhaps it isn’t, future discoveries will reveal the answer.



Behe wouldn’t deny that the flagellum evolved from simpler machines, and he wouldn’t deny that all flagellums have a common ancestor, what he would deny is that you can get them by random genetic changes + natural selection

Nothing in the article is in conflict with what Behe claims

Perhaps, , , has no meaning in scientific criteria. There is a conflict that the contemporary evidence does show steps in the evolution of the flagellum had a series of specific useful purpose in the stages of evolution

I answered your question, each step in the evolution of the flagellum is 'beneficial.'

Again, again and again . . . Chance, and randomness are layman's words for the observed variation in the outcome of cause and effect events, and do not determine the outcome of anything. From the scientific perspective the observed variation of the outcome of cause and effect events is fractal described by Chaos theory, and likewise does not cause the outcome.

Still waiting . . .

Behe still fails. Still waiting for a scientific reference that presents a falsifiable hypothesis that supports your assertions based on a religious agenda. You arguing in vague hypothetical terms and not science.

 

[Skwim]

The court in the Dover case was persuaded by the evidence before it, which is on the net eg >here<).

Cool link. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would like to see your evidence, how do you know that the flagellum can evolve on a step by step basis (one mutation at the time) where each mutation is betefitial.

Didn't I already do that for you? Perhaps not on this thread but another I posted both a video and a link to a paper on that topic. I could link it again if you missed it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientific method

Non-answer. You have not presented anything concerning the scientific method in support of ID.

At this point Behe (and neodarwinists) are in point 4 regarding the evolution of the flagellum. Creationists are following the scientific method, it is just that they haven’t completed the process. Time will say if they are correct or wrong.

Not 'being comfortable' is not a scientific response. No they are not presenting anything that follows the scientific method. That is falsifiable hypothesis, and objective verifiable evidence.

Neo-Darwinists???? Please explain with references.

Still waiting for both Behe and you . . .

Still waiting for a scientific reference that presents a falsifiable hypothesis that supports your assertions based on a religious agenda, which is the scientific method. You arguing in vague hypothetical terms and not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so how do you go from something that looks like A to B, where A is any of the pictures, and B is the next?

The truth is that nobody knows, perhaps the path is irreducible complex, perhaps it isn’t, future discoveries will reveal the answer.



Behe wouldn’t deny that the flagellum evolved from simpler machines, and he wouldn’t deny that all flagellums have a common ancestor, what he would deny is that you can get them by random genetic changes + natural selection

Nothing in the article is in conflict with what Behe claims

Perhaps, , , has no meaning in scientific criteria. There is a conflict that the contemporary evidence does show steps in the evolution of the flagellum had a series of specific useful purpose in the stages of evolution. The fallacy of 'arguing from vague ignorance' does not give Behe nor you any points.

I answered your question.

Again, again and again . . . Chance, and randomness are layman's words for the observed variation in the outcome of cause and effect events, and do not determine the outcome of anything. From the scientific perspective the observed variation of the outcome of cause and effect events is fractal described by Chaos theory, and likewise does not cause the outcome.

Still waiting . . .

Behe still fails. Still waiting for a scientific reference that presents a falsifiable hypothesis that supports your assertions based on a religious agenda.

 

[Bear Wild]

Some have indicated that they do not fully understand the issue, and this deals with them. Also, I believe it is necessary to continue the up front dialogue that specifies the scientific criteria for the consideration of any theory, hypothesis or theorem to be valid is worthwhile to bring the argument always in their faces. I ave found new articles still being published particularly misusing statistics and probability in their efforts to gain recognition of ID as science, and I will address these in detail. Since statistics and probability is a difficult subject for layman, and put this misuse up front and explain to all why it is an egregious use of math to justify an agenda..

Statistics and probability can be very misleading since it is poorly understood and often does not contain the correct statistical method for what one is proving or insufficient sample size or contain bias. Medical literature which I review is full of misleading information which when given to the media is further distorted. ID can only try to disprove rather than prove with their statistics and probability since they cannot generate any evidence directly for intelligent design.

Can you still explain what you mean by "adding the word 'religious' is to general a use of the word.

 

[exchemist]

Statistics and probability can be very misleading since it is poorly understood and often does not contain the correct statistical method for what one is proving or insufficient sample size or contain bias. Medical literature which I review is full of misleading information which when given to the media is further distorted. ID can only try to disprove rather than prove with their statistics and probability since they cannot generate any evidence directly for intelligent design.

Can you still explain what you mean by "adding the word 'religious' is to general a use of the word.

Religious?

 

[ChristineM]

There is no evidence nor any theory of how the universe began. There are hypothesis based on mathematics and observations of conditions after the event and there are guesses based on faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Statistics and probability can be very misleading since it is poorly understood and often does not contain the correct statistical method for what one is proving or insufficient sample size or contain bias. Medical literature which I review is full of misleading information which when given to the media is further distorted. ID can only try to disprove rather than prove with their statistics and probability since they cannot generate any evidence directly for intelligent design.

Can you still explain what you mean by "adding the word 'religious' is to general a use of the word.

You referred to 'religious naturalism' in describing pantheism. Yes, the definition of pantheism may be described as varied views of naturalism, but religious is an ambiguous term when used here. Some forms of pantheism do attribute more spiritual attributes to our physical existence than others as in Deism and panenthism, but pantheism basically still considers our physical existence what may be called 'God,' which is more akin to atheism, because in this view there is nothing beyond our physical existence..

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no evidence nor any theory of how the universe began. There are hypothesis based on mathematics and observations of conditions after the event and there are guesses based on faith.

I believe there is more evidence based on Quantum Mechanics,and the work of Stephan Hawking. The evidence supports the hypothesis that the singularity formed in a greater Quantum World? based on Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity. I do believe the evidence is very limited, and does not resolve what the grater cosmos is that some call the Multiverse.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe there is more evidence based on Quantum Mechanics,and the work of Stephan Hawking. The evidence supports the hypothesis that the singularity formed in a greater Quantum World? based on Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity. I do believe the evidence is very limited, and does not resolve what the grater cosmos is that some call the Multiverse.

I know of 27 such ideas, all have some basis in current knowledge. I favour that of Laura Mersini-Houghton's colliding universes. It has 3 phenomenon observable in our universe to back it up. However those phenomena, individually or in groups could very well account for other models.

I also like the vacuum bubble scenario simply because i can use it to argue that our universe could have come uncaused from nothing. It is at least mathematically feasible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Scientific method

T


At this point Behe (and neodarwinists) are in point 4 regarding the evolution of the flagellum. Creationists are following the scientific method, it is just that they haven’t completed the process. Time will say if they are correct or wrong.

No, they aren't. ID is not a scientific proposition.

 

[leroy]

Still waiting . . .

Behe still fails. Still waiting for a scientific reference that presents a falsifiable hypothesis that supports your assertions based on a religious agenda.

I answered to you request since the very first time you asked.

If you can show that flagellums can evolve on a step* by step basis without too many* codependent mutations* Behes argument would be falsified. Therefore the argument is falsifiable.

Definitions

Step* a random* mutation or any other positive genetic change achievable in 1 generation

Too many* Behe explains where the limits are, more than 3 successive codependent mutations are far beyond any reasonable limit

Codependent mutation* 2 or more mutations (or genetic change) are codependent if by themselves are useless, but working together they would perform a beneficial function that would be selected by natural selection.

*Random, Not guided nor biased towards a particular goal

..

If you what to insist that the argument is unfalsifiable, please provide some justification.

 

[leroy]

Didn't I already do that for you? Perhaps not on this thread but another I posted both a video and a link to a paper on that topic. I could link it again if you missed it.

At most your sources show that the flagellum evolved from preexisting systems, but you haven’t shown that the event occurred on step by step basis (one or few random mutations at the time)