The flaws in Intelligent design

[Audie]

Examples, please. But do make sure that they are endorsing Haeckel's 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny', which was debunked, and are not just comparing embryos.

Now you are not being fair, asking the impossible.

I wonder why, btw, none of our creos claim fraud,
and proof that astronomy is fake, by citing the
canals of Mars.

I mean, its about the same thing at about the
same time; poor quality optical instruments, and
respectable scientists thinking the saw something that
was not there.

I should not offer them this one, but, the Royal Society in
London had all these sea floor samples, dredged up
in the 19th century, and there was this stuff in there that
they took to be the "primordial ooze" from wich life
originated.

It was later learned that it was produced by the
formaldehyde that had been added to preserve
the samples.

But hey, Satan-driven FRAUD is what it is.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

This will be simple then. If something is observable, then it can be communicated and explained to others so that they can observe it too.

I cannot wait to see the observations. I'll make the popcorn.

You need an explanation for something you can see for yourself?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

" it is
actually impossible to be an informed, and
intellectually honest, creationist."

Well I have 4 degrees in engineering
and 25 patents and
would like to think I know a thing or two

I would expect that you know some things about engineering. I have degrees too and a few patents. Mine are in biology. Where do you reckon that leaves us when we disagree?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Except for a lack of examples; easy to say,
but kinda tough to substantiate. Try!

I picked up a bit of the easy-to-say strategy of argument from you. Been trying it out.

 

[tas8831]

" it is
actually impossible to be an informed, and
intellectually honest, creationist."

Well I have 4 degrees in engineering
and 25 patents and
would like to think I know a thing or two

About engineering, no doubt.

I had a mechanical engineer creationist insist in a post to me that all cells are spheres, and that 'all of biology' was but a weekend's reading for him. I posted a picture of cuboidal epithelium. He stopped replying to me, and left the forum a few days later. I found him a couple of years later on another cre/ev forum, making the same claim.

I wouldn't dream of pontificating about engineering on a discussion forum about engineering. But engineers that are also creationists seem not to exhibit the same sort of humility. Most interesting.

 

[tas8831]

Just like your post.

Great reply.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You need an explanation for something you can see for yourself?

I can see lots of things, but I have never seen evidence that indicates a designer. Beautiful mountains and pretty sunsets are evidence that I find them aesthetically pleasing and not that they were designed. Claiming they were designed is only a claim and not evidence supporting design.

We are talking about what can be demonstrated and not what is believed. I believe you when you say you believe. The presence of your belief or my belief is not in question here. It is claims made based on belief that should be observable by all, but are observable by no one that is the core of the argument.

 

[tas8831]

Interestingly in lists of the top 100 most beneficial inventions to mankind,
none inherently rest on evolution.

Often both views share the same data, but differ not in the scientific observations
but on the assumptions

Cool irrelevant retort.

Was that response made out of desperation, or did you actually think that this request:

"Please provide a single legitimate example of the some of all the scientific progress that "disputes it [where "it" refers to evolution].""

was met by mentioning inventions?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

About engineering, no doubt.

I had a mechanical engineer creationist insist in a post to me that all cells are spheres, and that 'all of biology' was but a weekend's reading for him. I posted a picture of cuboidal epithelium. He stopped replying to me, and left the forum a few days later. I found him a couple of years later on another cre/ev forum, making the same claim.

I wouldn't dream of pontificating about engineering on a discussion forum about engineering. But engineers that are also creationists seem not to exhibit the same sort of humility. Most interesting.

Engineers seem to think that biology is a piece of cake, then they start preaching it, and clearly, they are having their cake and choking on it too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Cool irrelevant retort.

Was that response made out of desperation, or did you actually think that this request:

"Please provide a single legitimate example of the some of all the scientific progress that "disputes it [where "it" refers to evolution].""

was met by mentioning inventions?

That is the case cracker. Because there are no inventions that set right on the foundation (evolution), the foundation can clearly be rejected. I guess there is a gap between being an engineer and knowing enough about biology not to make silly analogies that misrepresent the issue.

 

[tas8831]

Evidence? That's the biggest problem you have in selling the evolution theory -- no evidence to back it up.

Cool - another totally informative response.

I have shared this on this forum probably 10 times when creationists make such silly claims. Creationists generally ignore it, or will do something silly and desperate like google "phylogenetics" and copy-paste part of what they find, highlighting words they think will help their cause. it never does, and then they run off.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can hereby ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

​

Your turn.

 

[Audie]

I think it says a lot for the strength of evolution as a theory and a foundation of biology, that after more than 150 years and countless volumes of research, the only evidence of any impropriety that can be found is Haeckel and a fraud committed on science and not by science that was determined to be a fraud by science.

Haeckel and Piltdown man get bandied about like they are the silver bullet, when they insignificant and blown well out of proportion. It is all they have and they grasp it tenaciously and desperately, like any drowning victim would.

Even Piltdown, clearly a fake, can hardly called a fraud
when one knows not who did it, or why.

An earlier and rather similar thing happened in Germany
with carved "fossils" salted by a professor at the U, to
prank the other professor who was collecting there.

Things like greek letters and crucifixes were eventually
added, as the practical joke got more and more outrageous.

In the end, both professors were fired.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

All the research that has been done on Archaeopteryx indicate that it shares features of both its reptilian ancestry and the derived characters that are found in modern birds. That is a transitional form. That it may be somewhat more closely related to birds to the point that it can be classified as a bird does not alter the fact of its transitional nature.

Discovering a creature whose lineage was thought to be extinct, even for millions of years, is a noteworthy discovery, but it does not mean that it refutes evolution. The Coelacanth species found today, reveal a conserved external morphology with their fossil relatives, but they are not the same species as those fossilized relatives. The coelacanth exists in a very stable environment that is millions of years old and there has been no significant selection to drive larger evolutionary changes and, as a group, they have remained in what is known as evolutionary stasis. They still possess derived characteristics that place them in a transition from fish to land creatures.

I'll still go with bird and fish, but I will admit that you are quick and articulate in your pro-evolution arguments. Nice try.

 

[Audie]

I picked up a bit of the easy-to-say strategy of argument from you. Been trying it out.

You certainly did not learn from me to try to put your
failings off on others, as you do here twice in a row.

Show some self respect, already!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I absolutely, 100%, agree with you on this.

Though I'm also quite willing to go out and try to convert people....I won't try to claim that I have objective, empirical evidence.

I am not here to get involved in a debate about the value of proselytizing. People are free to try to convince others about what they believe in. I do not object to a person witnessing their belief to another, but any claim offered is just a claim about what is believed and not evidence that what is believed is demonstrated. Even experiences that are very real to the witness cannot be demonstrated so that another knows they are real too. It is an issue of faith, that, by its very nature, must remain always faith. In my opinion, that must be taken into account to be an honest witness.

 

[Audie]

A lot of it boils down to assumptions taken before looking at the same data

IOW ya gots nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll still go with bird and fish, but I will admit that you are quick and articulate in your pro-evolution arguments. Nice try.

Accepting the former as a bird and latter as a fish does not change the fact that they are transitional forms.

It was not a try. It was a valid argument based on the evidence and rejection of it should be likewise, if possible. Rejecting it by claiming 'nice try' is just weak denial based on what appears to me to be feelings of discomfort and lack of understanding.

Every classification is an hypothesis that is accepted or rejected based on the evidence. From what I have seen, your acceptance of a particular classification is based on expediency and emotion and not on evidence. The fact is, that no matter how you classify these two organisms, they still express features that make them transitional forms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll still go with bird and fish, but I will admit that you are quick and articulate in your pro-evolution arguments. Nice try.

Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, three claws on each of its wings, a long, bony tail and a flat sternum. Modern birds do not have these features, but theropod dinosaurs did. It also has feathers, wings and a wishbone like modern birds. Transitional, no matter how one ultimately chooses to classify it.

 

[dianaiad]

It is clear that I understand that. You are the one not following along.

The problem is that you are not approaching this scientifically. You can't examine what is not there and if you can't even define "design" properly you will never know if something is designed or not.

Why should scientists worry about whether the universe is 'designed' or not, if the method (scientific) used to examine how it works is the same either way?

As long as you figure that one MUST make a decision one way or the other as to whether the universe was designed, as long as you insist that one cannot be a scientist if one figures that it was, you are turning your position into a religion. That is, you are insisting upon qualifications for admission to the group 'scientist' that have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Since one cannot prove or disprove that there IS a 'designer,' or God, empirically, one must use other methods to figure that out for oneself. those other methods are not science or the scientific method...and should not be used to figure out whether a volcano is a shield volcano or a cone volcano. However, the methods used to determine the probable cause of 'shocked quartz," (whether nuclear explosion or meteor strike) cannot be used to determine spiritual, religious, matters. You are trying to conflate the two issues.

......and yes, SOME ID believers do the same thing, but by no means all do.

 

[dianaiad]

One cannot prove or disprove a God with or without science. However we do know it's faith based.

How can you tell if something that is living is/was deliberately designed?

From within the design itself? (and we would be, of course, within the design) You can't. All you can do is examine how the design works. Perhaps someday we might be able to do this, but not now, and it doesn't matter in terms of science. Doesn't change anything about the design itself, would it? It is what it is. Designed deliberately or accidental, the process of it's workings are the same either way.