Original research into intelligent design and/or creationism

[rusra02]

Macroevolution in plants through hybridisation and polyploidy has been observed and studied...

Such work may produce hybrid types of the same plant, but within the limits set by the Creator. What is produced is variety within kinds, not new kinds. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a plant geneticist reports that despite decades of experiments, efforts to create new plants have failed. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

 

[sonofdad]

Such work may produce hybrid types of the same plant, but within the limits set by the Creator. What is produced is variety within kinds, not new kinds. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a plant geneticist reports that despite decades of experiments, efforts to create new plants have failed. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

How are we defining "new species" in this instance?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah but didn't that guy somehow manage to end up in jail? Or was that the other guy...

I think it was the other guy.

Ken Hovind ran the tax evasion scheme. He was the ground breaker and "inventor" of his machine-gun argumentation. Very annoying. He talked over people and wouldn't let anyone explain anything for longer than 5 seconds.

I think the museum was created by Ken Ham, but I think the place is not doing so well. Not sure.

 

[Ouroboros]

They've never thought about it. Creationists don't do science. They just attack it.

That's why it's so annoying. And not only that, but they quote-mine for anything, any article or report that seems to contradict evolution on some minor thing, and voilá, that means that all and everything of evolution must be false to them! Just because blahblahosaurus wasn't related to mehwhateverosaurus doesn't mean the whole thing crumbles down.

I know most of them don't believe sedimentary layering is a reliable measurement of time passing. Yep - they don't believe in grade 7 level geology. When it comes to different evolutionary eras appearing at different layers, they say it's because the heaviest animals stunk the fastest during the flood. Lol.

Or the other 50 methods of dating. Many of them radioactive, but some of them chemical, magnetic, and other methods of dating. Preferably, each dating of a site is done by at least 3 methods, sometimes more. They all confirm each other, not perfectly because of small errors (which is natural considering rounding errors and also problem of measuring exact), but they match up quite well. Earth is not 6,000 years old, that's guaranteed. It's much, much older. And like you're saying, geology, it's well established science. To deny evolution is to deny geology, astronomy, math, ecology, biology, chemistry, physics, sociology, anthropology, archeology, ... and so on. In other words, denying evolution is to deny reality.

That's something else I could set out to find - evidence of heavy animals sinking faster in a modern day flood, replicating the pattern we see in the fossil record.

Strange thing that the lighter dinosaurs sank as fast as the heavy dinosaurs, while the horses, elephants, and whales, or other heavier animals than the light dinos managed to swim above the turbulent waters and mud sucking them down. I think there must've been an intelligent drowner... (cheek-in-tongue of course)

 

[Twilight Hue]

If you could do research into intelligent design (or creationism) what would you do?

Hypothetically imagine you had unlimited time and resources to do your research. You could do this in the lab or in the field. You could travel to any place on earth (or space if that helps). You could have a staff of researchers of any number.

So what would you do? What would you like to research? What methodology would you use? What kind of results would you expect to find?

Sky is the limit. I look forward to hearing some interesting ideas.

I would attempt to locate where the interaction takes place and focus there. If one says god speaks through the mind then a study of modes of transmission should commence for instance.

 

[Ouroboros]

I would attempt to locate where the interaction takes place and focus there. If one says god speaks through the mind then a study of modes of transmission should commence for instance.

I assume you mean the location in the brain? That's been done. The Koren Helmet (God Helmet) was used to stimulate parts of the brain using magnetism.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

the ToE remains unproven.

False. Not only false, but close to self-contradictory, since "theory" in science, basically just means "hypothesis which has been proven".

Talk about an epic fail.

In other words, any complex object, whether living or not ( a house, for example), that cannot be demonstrated to occur by natural forces, requires an intelligent designer.

False. Not only false, but fallacious; this is an argumentum ad ignorantium.

The amazing wisdom and brilliant design evident everywhere we look is proof positive, IMO, of a grand Designer.

Oops, unfortunately, it is hardly "proof positive" since regarding it as evidence in the first place is based on an untenable probabilistic argument from analogy (i.e. "the argument from design"). The fact is, we simply don't know what "evidence of design", as opposed to "evidence against design", would even look like on this scale (i.e. of the universe)

 

[Twilight Hue]

I assume you mean the location in the brain? That's been done. The Koren Helmet (God Helmet) was used to stimulate parts of the brain using magnetism.

I wasn't aware any attempt was made. Thanks.

At times i grew curious as to whether the brain is a generator or receiver of sorts for communication. On the basis of theists claiming communicating with god without any physical exchanges of vocabulary, science could try to investigate various ways the brain could interact with waves or similar within it's capabilities and framework.

A study that could be repeatable and verified subject to peer review. It may not prove god in light of advanced technology unknown to us as such could come from advanced life, but i think it would be a start using actual science. Provided of course there were compelling results from such an experiment.

God is said to interact, so if it true, then the point of interaction could be located via science eventually if there is any validity to what is claimed.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wasn't aware any attempt was made. Thanks.

At times i grew curious as to whether the brain is a generator or receiver of sorts for communication. On the basis of theists claiming communicating with god without any physical exchanges of vocabulary, science could try to investigate various ways the brain could interact with waves or similar within it's capabilities and framework.

A study that could be repeatable and verified subject to peer review. It may not prove god in light of advanced technology unknown to us as such could come from advanced life, but i think it would be a start using actual science. Provided of course there were compelling results from such an experiment.

God is said to interact, so if it true, then the point of interaction could be located via science eventually if there is any validity to what is claimed.

Yes. That's what they could focus on for research, and I think there's been a few studies like this.

The problem is that most research seems to show (if I understand it right) that there's not a single or localized function in the brain. Yes, there are areas that are focused or energized when certain functions are done, but it's not done by a single cell or deconstructed part. Put it this way, consciousness, awareness, experience, feelings, and so on are the sum of a network of things that are happening in the brain and the body. If there is a communication going on with a God, I think the brain would work as a radio. It's a "consciousness" receiver/transmitter connected to the "field of consciousness" or "energy" or whatever.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Such work may produce hybrid types of the same plant, but within the limits set by the Creator. What is produced is variety within kinds, not new kinds. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a plant geneticist reports that despite decades of experiments, efforts to create new plants have failed. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

You do realize that kinds...mean things with common traits? Like how humans and chimpanzees have common traits.

More in common than actual differences, both physically and socially. So saying "kinds" doesn't at all negate evolution, if anything it shows that:

A. Humans and Chimpanzees are essentially the same thing, with just cosmetic differences.

B. Humans and Chimps have some relationship that can be traced.

I wouldn't be quick to use the term kind as it runs more problems in trying to explain why we are different than other animals.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Such work may produce hybrid types of the same plant, but within the limits set by the Creator. What is produced is variety within kinds, not new kinds. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a plant geneticist reports that despite decades of experiments, efforts to create new plants have failed. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a creationist, so he's hardly objective. We're discussing science here and the scientific definition of macroevolution is "evolution at or above the species level". A plant hybrid that is sexually separated from it's two parent plants and can produce more plants is a new species by definition, no matter what Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig claims, and that means that we have observed macroevolution in plants. When you discuss science you should stick to using the scientific meaning of the words and concepts.

"Kind" is not a scientific term and as far as I know it isn't even properly defined.

 

[Alceste]

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a creationist, so he's hardly objective. We're discussing science here and the scientific definition of macroevolution is "evolution at or above the species level". A plant hybrid that is sexually separated from it's two parent plants and can produce more plants is a new species by definition, no matter what Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig claims, and that means that we have observed macroevolution in plants. When you discuss science you should stick to using the scientific meaning of the words and concepts.

"Kind" is not a scientific term and as far as I know it isn't even properly defined.

Plants are so creative in their propagation, versatile and malleable that the distinction of sexual reproduction we use in the animal kingdom to determine what is or isn't a species is sort of ineffective. I think they've got some other method for plants, but I forget what it is.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Plants are so creative in their propagation, versatile and malleable that the distinction of sexual reproduction we use in the animal kingdom to determine what is or isn't a species is sort of ineffective. I think they've got some other method for plants, but I forget what it is.

Nearly all plants have the capability for sexual reproduction if I recall correctly, so I think it's still useful. If they reproduce asexually, then I guess you measure by genetics. If something passes through polyploidy and survives, then it probably should be regarded as a new species .

If I'm wrong then I guess I'll learn about it soon, because I was accepted into a biology bachelor's program.

 

[Alceste]

Nearly all plants have the capability for sexual reproduction if I recall correctly, so I think it's still useful. If they reproduce asexually, then I guess you measure by genetics. If something passes through polyploidy and survives, then it probably should be regarded as a new species .

If I'm wrong then I guess I'll learn about it soon, because I was accepted into a biology bachelor's program.

Awesome! Then you can explain it to me. As a gardener on the West coast, I believe in the abiogenesis of horsetail.

Seriously though, I can start plants from clippings, root sections, bulbs, seeds, grafting... I'm aware of entire forests that are one single tree cloning itself through root shoots over spans of hundreds of miles... I can't make sense of any of it in terms of biological classification. Is broccoli the same species as cabbage? I have no idea.

It's way easier for me to keep things organized with the animals that ONLY reproduce sexually.

 

[rusra02]

You've heard of DNA, right? Guess what - it proves macroevolution.

OK, I'll bite. How does DNA prove macro evolution?

 

[rusra02]

False. Not only false, but close to self-contradictory, since "theory" in science, basically just means "hypothesis which has been proven".

Talk about an epic fail.


False. Not only false, but fallacious; this is an argumentum ad ignorantium.


Oops, unfortunately, it is hardly "proof positive" since regarding it as evidence in the first place is based on an untenable probabilistic argument from analogy (i.e. "the argument from design"). The fact is, we simply don't know what "evidence of design", as opposed to "evidence against design", would even look like on this scale (i.e. of the universe)

Regardless of what meaning you arbitrarily impose on the word "Theory", macro evolution remains unproven. According to Cambridge Dictionary online:

Definition
B2 a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:
economic theory
scientific theory
Darwin's theory of evolution
He has a theory that the hole was caused by a meteorite.

 

[rusra02]

This is like saying Germ Theory is unproven. I mean, you can say it, but nobody is going to take you seriously.

Many scientists and millions of intelligent people give the lie to your brash statement.

 

[rusra02]

You do realize that kinds...mean things with common traits? Like how humans and chimpanzees have common traits.

More in common than actual differences, both physically and socially. So saying "kinds" doesn't at all negate evolution, if anything it shows that:

A. Humans and Chimpanzees are essentially the same thing, with just cosmetic differences.

B. Humans and Chimps have some relationship that can be traced.

I wouldn't be quick to use the term kind as it runs more problems in trying to explain why we are different than other animals.

I think your statement that humans and chimpanzees are essentially the same thing is demonstrably false. Otherwise, chimpanzees would be creating posts in RF.

Nor is there evidence that humans and chimpanzees are somehow related, or that humans descended from chimps.

 

[rusra02]

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a creationist, so he's hardly objective. We're discussing science here and the scientific definition of macroevolution is "evolution at or above the species level". A plant hybrid that is sexually separated from it's two parent plants and can produce more plants is a new species by definition, no matter what Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig claims, and that means that we have observed macroevolution in plants. When you discuss science you should stick to using the scientific meaning of the words and concepts.

"Kind" is not a scientific term and as far as I know it isn't even properly defined.

Attacking scientists like Lonnig is not an answer. What you mislabel as macro evolution is simply variety within kinds, not new plants, as Dr. Lonnigs forty years of scientific research has confirmed.

 

[Alceste]

OK, I'll bite. How does DNA prove macro evolution?

Meh. It's over your head. First you need to learn what science is and why it works. Then we can move on to how evolution works and why we know it is true. Then you might be ready to tackle how mtDNA proves universal common ancestry.