Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[Autodidact]

So sandor, (or Sandor, if you prefer), is it your position that new species never come into existence, but every species presently on earth has always existed in its present form?

btw, I have to ask, what institutions of higher learning gave you a B.S. in Biology and a Ph.d is Philosophy of Science?

Because for someone so well-educated in the subject, you seem remarkably ignorant of some really basic concepts.

 

[sandor606]

So sandor, (or Sandor, if you prefer), is it your position that new species never come into existence, but every species presently on earth has always existed in its present form?

btw, I have to ask, what institutions of higher learning gave you a B.S. in Biology and a Ph.d is Philosophy of Science?

Because for someone so well-educated in the subject, you seem remarkably ignorant of some really basic concepts.

Here you go with insults again. You are the ignorant one as you ignore my questions: What produced the Cambrian explosion? Whence do birds come from and from what organs have feathers and the avian lung evolved? Darwin's accumulative minute changes acted upon by natural selection cannot account for these events since the phyla in the Cambrian explosion and birds appeared suddenly, the latterwith fully functional wings and lungs. Can you, with your superior mind, answer these questions which my professor of evolutionary biology was unable to answer?

You may believe what you wish about my degrees and other things about me, but I remind you that this discussion is is NOT about me, though you sure are attempting to make it, so it's really none of your business. Just answer the questions. I will not continue this discussion until these questions have been addressed and answered.

 

[painted wolf]

Just answer the questions. I will not continue this discussion until these questions have been addressed and answered.

I addressed them... if you want more details then start a thread on the subjects...
or you can ask here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/79784-questions-about-evolution.html

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

So sandor, (or Sandor, if you prefer), is it your position that new species never come into existence, but every species presently on earth has always existed in its present form?

btw, I have to ask, what institutions of higher learning gave you a B.S. in Biology and a Ph.d is Philosophy of Science?

Because for someone so well-educated in the subject, you seem remarkably ignorant of some really basic concepts.

I already tried that. No dice. Sandor will not share where he received his degree with us. Painted Wolf clued me into the fact that religious universities are allowed to hand them out now, so I can only assume this is where he went. I read a statistic, if I remember it right, that over 60 % of the post-graduate biology degree students at Brigham-Young University don't believe in the ToE. What they're learning, God only knows, but it just goes to show you academic credentials (if Sandor actually has them, as he claims) are misleading.

 

[camanintx]

Just answer the questions. I will not continue this discussion until these questions have been addressed and answered.

I'm still waiting to hear your theory on how the weak nuclear force came to be and what other possible values it could have taken.

 

[sandor606]

I addressed them... if you want more details then start a thread on the subjects...
or you can ask here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/79784-questions-about-evolution.html

wa:do

I want your opinion and the evidence that support it, not a link, so we can dissuss it between us. What about the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden appearance of birds, the feather, the avian lung, to name a few, how did they suddenly appear? They could not have occurred as a result of gradual changes because there have been no precursors to change. All of a sudden they just were there.

This is my last post until YOU personally engage in this discussion by answering my questions.

 

[sandor606]

I'm still waiting to hear your theory on how the weak nuclear force came to be and what other possible values it could have taken.

I already ansered the question as to why the constants of physics are the way they are. Read my posts or Google for the answer.

 

[Alceste]

I want your opinion and the evidence that support it, not a link, so we can dissuss it between us. What about the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden appearance of birds, the feather, the avian lung, to name a few, how did they suddenly appear? They could not have occurred as a result of gradual changes because there have been no precursors to change. All of a sudden they just were there.

This is my last post until YOU personally engage in this discussion by answering my questions.

That's such a ridiculous request. Surely you are aware that everything - everything - scientists observe, analyze, test, discover, manipulate, and in some cases apply to practical purposes, if it relates to a living organism of any kind, conforms to and is entirely based on - the ToE. There is no end to the evidence of it. The people on this thread have buried you in evidence, and here you are still banging on about evidence.

You want one single laboratory experiment that, when taken alone, suffices as absolute proof of descent with modification. Is that right?

If you knew anything - anything at all - about science, you'd realize scientific theories are not based on a single, definitive laboratory experiment. They're based on the entire body of available evidence. Like ToE. Look up anything at all - any fact about living organisms - there's your evidence.

All you've done in this thread, when the well-meaning and well-informed members of this thread provide you with huge lists of evidence and links to further evidence - is obfuscate, complaining that the overwhelming evidence doesn't meet your standards of "evidence" (read: a pop-sci book with some math in it that implies in one or two sentences - taken out of context of course - that there might be a creator involved). When any effort is made to move the conversation forward, you dodge questions, repeat yourself, lie about your accomplishments and qualifications, lie about the near-unanimous consensus of tens of thousands of biologists with regard to evolutionary biology, and come back to your old standby: "Show me your evidence. No, not THAT evidence, some other evidence. No, don't show it like THAT, show it the way I want it shown. No, don't show it with your own words, show it by typing out quotes. No, not with links, I won't click any links."

Never mind that, in this thread, it's the creationists who have been asked to pony up some evidence, not the people who live in reality. Something you have completely failed to do.

I think you might very well be the most ungrateful and annoying person who has ever figured out how to use the internet. You're talking to people who would be happy to help you learn something about biology and science, and they've been very patient with you, but you're obviously only here to watch yourself shine in your radiant ignorance.

 

[Yerda]

Here you go with insults again. You are the ignorant one as you ignore my questions: What produced the Cambrian explosion? Whence do birds come from and from what organs have feathers and the avian lung evolved? Darwin's accumulative minute changes acted upon by natural selection cannot account for these events since the phyla in the Cambrian explosion and birds appeared suddenly, the latterwith fully functional wings and lungs. Can you, with your superior mind, answer these questions which my professor of evolutionary biology was unable to answer?

Painted Wolf has stated that avian lungs evolved from dino precursors. That seems like a no brainer - but if you ask nice she'll likely have access to a paper on the matter. The feathers evolved long before the birds did, Sandor, from scales on the dinosaurs where they appeared. If you are genuine in your inquiries it shouldn't be hard for you to accept that these are not problems for evolutionary biologists (with the exception of your professor, of course).

You may believe what you wish about my degrees and other things about me, but I remind you that this discussion is is NOT about me, though you sure are attempting to make it, so it's really none of your business. Just answer the questions. I will not continue this discussion until these questions have been addressed and answered.

Your credibility remains intact, however your insistence upon laboratory experiments that conclusively prove the theory of evolution seems peculiar from someone with a degree in science and a postgrad in philosophy of science.

 

[Autodidact]

From your link:
"The long-term evolution experiment was intended to provide experimental evidence for several of the central problems of evolutionary biology: how rates of evolution vary over time; the extent to which evolutionary changes are repeatable in separate populations with identical environments; and the relationship between evolution at the phenotypic and genomic levels.[2]"

The experiment did not provide evidence supporting the fundamental tenet of Darwinian evolution: natural selection. It provided evidence for other problems in evolutionary biology but not that natural selection guides/drives evolution in general, or that it specifically drove the evolution of those bacteria. There is not a single sentence in the article that sheds light on that.

It doesn't look like you understood the article. It's all about the relationship between natural selection and spontaneous mutations, and how their relationship determines the rate of genetic change over thousands of generations.

 

[Autodidact]

I am neither ignorant nor dishonest but you sure have an opinionated and offensive mouth.

Then how come you don't know these basic facts? That scientific theories do not depend on laboratory experiments alone, indeed, their are entire scientific fields in which laboratory experiments are impossible. That speciation has been observed in the lab and the field. That there is an entire field of evolutionary biology devoted to experimentation, both with live organisms and computer simulations. When you say that speciation doesn't happen, is it because you don't know it does, or because you know it does but are lying? Because, as I showed in the link, it clearly happens.

Early on in this discussion I was asked to provide info on tests/experiments that support ID. If that is the standard then it should be applied to all interpretation of evolution. The E.coli experiment you provided to support your contention was carried out in a laboratory and my comment referred to that. In addition, as I pointed out in my previous post, the experiment did not address the question of natural selection. I also agree with Dobzhanski; where I disagree is concerning the nature of evolution which is NOT driven by natural selection but is prescribed.

Did any of your "evidence" come from laboratory experiments? Are you trying to deny there is any such thing as natural selection? Hoe would that be possible? Do organisms live forever? Do their traits NOT affect their likelihood of surviving and reproducing? Prescribed by what?

 

[sandor606]

I already tried that. No dice. Sandor will not share where he received his degree with us. Painted Wolf clued me into the fact that religious universities are allowed to hand them out now, so I can only assume this is where he went. I read a statistic, if I remember it right, that over 60 % of the post-graduate biology degree students at Brigham-Young University don't believe in the ToE. What they're learning, God only knows, but it just goes to show you academic credentials (if Sandor actually has them, as he claims) are misleading.

I got my degrees in a village in Africa from a witch doctor.

The focus is on the messenger instead of the message because nobody can answer the questions. By consistently focusing on me, assuming everything about me, and calling me names you and others have shown your true nature: judgmental, opinionated, self-righteous, and arrogant.

It is by now plenty obvious to me that there is no interest in pursuing ID on this thread. Here, ToE holds court and everything else is dismissed with malice and aforethought, especially the messenger. Therefore, it's time for me to leave so that you and others may continue to bad-mouth me, be unincombered by ID's non-science, and reinforce with each other Darwin's "gradualism" mistaken notion as the one and only answer .

Q. How does gradualism explain the Cambrian Explosion, the evolution of birds, the feather and the avian lung? I'll continue the discussion when I read an answer.

 

[Autodidact]

If this is the case, what brought about the Cambrian explosion?

You mean, why was there an increase in speciation over this 50 million year period? Maybe you could specify more clearly what you're asking.

And whence did birds evolve?

the predominant theory is from dinosaurs, or possibly dinosaur precursors.

Specifically, what organs became the feather

Feathers evolved before true birds. The ancestors of modern birds, including Archeopterix, had feathers. Here is a link that details the evolution of feathers, from hollow tubes to barbed ridges to true feathers. This is the kind of thing I would expect someone with a Biology degree to know, and I do find it odd that I have to explain it to you.

and the avian lung respectively thorugh small, successive steps?

What specifically about avian lungs makes you think they could or did not evolve in small, successive steps? Indeed, from what we can determine from fossils, there appear to be substantial similarities between bird and therapod lungs. Why do you ask?

 

[Autodidact]

Here you go with insults again.

I assure you I don't mean to insult you. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. I myself have no idea how my car or my checking account work. As long as you admit your ignorance and are open to rectifying it. It's just a factual statement that there's a lot about Biology that you don't seem to know, which seemed odd to me in someone with a degree in it.

You are the ignorant one as you ignore my questions:

Maybe you're not clear about what "ignorant" means. It indicates only a lack of knowledge.

What produced the Cambrian explosion?

I'm sorry, I thought you were asking Painted Wolf. This question doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I think would take an entire undergraduate course to answer. What's your particular interest in the Cambrian era, as opposed to the Devonian or Jurassic?

Whence do birds come from and from what organs have feathers and the avian lung evolved?

See post above.

Darwin's accumulative minute changes acted upon by natural selection cannot account for these events since the phyla in the Cambrian explosion and birds appeared suddenly, the latterwith fully functional wings and lungs.

No, birds didn't appear any more suddenly than other important developments. I don't really consider 50 million years to be sudden, do you?

Can you, with your superior mind, answer these questions which my professor of evolutionary biology was unable to answer?

I don't claim to have a superior mind. I just take the time to learn about things I'm interested in. In fact, I don't even know much about evolutionary biology, which again is why I find it odd that I seem to know so much more about it than you. Your professor didn't know anything about the evolution of birds? I find that hard to believe.

You may believe what you wish about my degrees and other things about me, but I remind you that this discussion is is NOT about me, though you sure are attempting to make it, so it's really none of your business. Just answer the questions. I will not continue this discussion until these questions have been addressed and answered.

I'm sorry, when you brought up your educational background, I thought you thought it was relevant in some way.

I really do not care whether you continue the discussion or not; it's entirely up to you.

Now, you haven't answered some questions: Are you asserting that speciation doesn't happen? That every species present on earth has always existed in its present form? That there is no such thing as natural selection? How many biologists assert that ToE explains something you're calling "micro-evolution" but not speciation? Can you name ten? Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

I want your opinion and the evidence that support it, not a link, so we can dissuss it between us.

I don't understand. You want evidence, but no links to scientific studies? What kind of evidence exactly are you looking for?

What about the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden appearance of birds, the feather, the avian lung, to name a few, how did they suddenly appear?

They didn't. Nothing evolves suddenly.

They could not have occurred as a result of gradual changes because there have been no precursors to change. All of a sudden they just were there.

This is simply false. If you bothered with links, you would see the avian precursors. They're incredibly interesting.

This is my last post until YOU personally engage in this discussion by answering my questions.

As I said, do as you like. I have no personal investment in whether you continue the discussion or not.

 

[Autodidact]

I got my degrees in a village in Africa from a witch doctor.

The focus is on the messenger instead of the message because nobody can answer the questions. By consistently focusing on me, assuming everything about me, and calling me names you and others have shown your true nature: judgmental, opinionated, self-righteous, and arrogant.

It is by now plenty obvious to me that there is no interest in pursuing ID on this thread. Here, ToE holds court and everything else is dismissed with malice and aforethought, especially the messenger. Therefore, it's time for me to leave so that you and others may continue to bad-mouth me, be unincombered by ID's non-science, and reinforce with each other Darwin's "gradualism" mistaken notion as the one and only answer .

Q. How does gradualism explain the Cambrian Explosion, the evolution of birds, the feather and the avian lung? I'll continue the discussion when I read an answer.

sandor, you're the one who brought up ToE, not us. We were all busy explaining why ID isn't science. If you don't want to discuss something, don't bring it up. If you don't want to talk about your educational background, don't bring it up. But don't raise a subject and then whine when we respond. But bye-bye.

The Cambrian "explosion" was very gradual. So was bird evolution; it took tens of millions of years.

Continue the discussion when or if you like, but for heaven's sake stop making infantile threats about it.

 

[painted wolf]

I want your opinion and the evidence that support it, not a link, so we can dissuss it between us. What about the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden appearance of birds, the feather, the avian lung, to name a few, how did they suddenly appear? They could not have occurred as a result of gradual changes because there have been no precursors to change. All of a sudden they just were there.

This is my last post until YOU personally engage in this discussion by answering my questions.

I have already addressed these points... but if you want me to re-do it all so be it. (however this thread is not for evidence for evolution, but for "Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design"... we have several other threads for evidence for evolution.

The Cambrian 'explosion' was not a sudden event. Though when we only really knew about the Burgess shale, it was an easy mistake to make.
Further finds such as the Orsten fauna and the Ediacaran faunas have pushed the origins of complex life back much much deeper into time.
The 'explosion' itself took over 80 million years... hardly the blink of an eye.
Here is one example of the many studies done on the Cambrian.
Taking the Pulse of the Cambrian Radiation -- Lieberman 43 (1): 229 -- Integrative and Comparative Biology

Birds.... I'll limit myself on this one, as I could easily go way overboard.
Feathers are known from dinosaurs older than Archeopteryx.... such as Epidexipteryx hui.
Access : A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran from China with elongate ribbon-like feathers : Nature
All Saurischian dinosaurs had air-sacs like birds to help them breath and to reduce weight.
Avian-like breathing mechanics in maniraptoran dinosaurs
Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs : Abstract : Nature

there was no 'sudden appearance'... except as a preservation artifact that is being cleared up by finding more fossils.

Now I have asked you politely three times for your opinion on this question....

You have stated that you do not accept natural selection...
So from your point of view, every mutation and every adaptation is the result of tinkering from an unseen force? Is this force active or is pre-ordained in your view?

If you can not answer an honest, direct question on your views of Intelligent Design then there is no reason to continue discussing the subject. (as you would have shown that you intend to preach rather than discuss.)

wa:do

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Every adaptation and mutation could have been not the result of tinkering but rather had a statistically greater likelihood to occur in the manner than it did and this would qualify as "Designed" (not necessarily intelligent, since a self-organizing cosmos need not be "intelligent" in the manner we understand the term to mean).

Though I do tend to agree that Sandor has over-stepped himself in terms of the evidence available.

MTF

 

[Alceste]

I got my degrees in a village in Africa from a witch doctor.

The focus is on the messenger instead of the message because nobody can answer the questions. By consistently focusing on me, assuming everything about me, and calling me names you and others have shown your true nature: judgmental, opinionated, self-righteous, and arrogant.

It is by now plenty obvious to me that there is no interest in pursuing ID on this thread. Here, ToE holds court and everything else is dismissed with malice and aforethought, especially the messenger. Therefore, it's time for me to leave so that you and others may continue to bad-mouth me, be unincombered by ID's non-science, and reinforce with each other Darwin's "gradualism" mistaken notion as the one and only answer .

Q. How does gradualism explain the Cambrian Explosion, the evolution of birds, the feather and the avian lung? I'll continue the discussion when I read an answer.

All your questions have been answered. Repeatedly. By several contributors.

My focus is on you because you are - inexplicably - denying that your questions have been answered, and that is a very curious thing. Do you have a mental illness? Are you a troll? Has this forum become some kind of boot camp for Discovery Institute propaganda trainees? Where does a person who is apparently unable / unwilling to read or recall written information acquire a degree of any kind, let alone a philosophy degree? Were you once an intelligent person who got a degree using the standard mental faculties allotted to us all, but converted to a mind-killing religious cult since?

Assuming you actually do have an education of some kind, my best guess at present is that you were educated in a religious institution and have been recruited by the ID movement to help advance their agenda via a debate strategy based on deception, obfuscation and denial. You are only here to get a sense of the type of objections you might encounter from the secular world so that you can refine your technique, and then you're planning to infiltrate some poor, unsuspecting PTA somewhere.

 

[fantome profane]

Every adaptation and mutation could have been not the result of tinkering but rather had a statistically greater likelihood to occur in the manner than it did and this would qualify as "Designed" (not necessarily intelligent, since a self-organizing cosmos need not be "intelligent" in the manner we understand the term to mean).

Could you tell me what you mean by “Designed” in this context?