Evolution and Intelligent Design

[sandy_mcd]

No sense in explaining it to you....

We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselfs ... How dare a loving G-d tell me what to do.... Attack... Attack..

[sandy_mcd]

Chemical evolution is part of the rationale for molecules to man and it is all termed evolution. Chemical, biological.... evolution. Your acceptance of evolution to explain the origin of species shows your acceptance for the naturalist concept that everything came about as a consequence of natural action.

I've never heard of any biologist claiming that, some may, but I doubt it's the majority, and I certainly wouldn't agree with that statement... You are using evolution as a blanket term for change. We are specifically talking about the theory of evolution (biological). "Chemical evolution" and the theory of evolution are not the same thing. This thread is not about the origin of life.

Also, remember, the scientific community is not just made up of a bunch of naturalists. My acceptance of evolution is based on evidence and says NOTHING about any of my personal beliefs. Keep in mind, one of the most outspoken biologists (Kenneth Miller) against ID is a devout catholic, not a naturalist.

Apparently that is the point that some of us are not understanding. Any acceptance of any type of evolution (other than microevolution aka variation within kind) is seen as a dismissal of a creator and a commitment to naturalism.
The fact that some Christians (especially Catholics if they are granted Christian status) accept evolution is irrelevant.
The fact that recent evolution may be true but current thoughts on abiogenesis wrong is also irrelevant.

[KBCid]

Apparently that is the point that some of us are not understanding. Any acceptance of any type of evolution (other than microevolution aka variation within kind) is seen as a dismissal of a creator and a commitment to naturalism.

No it is not. A designer may well have arranged the systems in living organisms to adapt and in fact The ID community and I both see the evidence showing just such a system in play.
The 'point' being made is that the mechanics of how evolution is proposed to function is not backed by empirical evidence. I and most others are tearing down the conceptual presentation of evolutionists based on the fact that evolution of life doesn't work the way its presented. The opposition to evolutionary assertions is based entirely on it simply being wrong with no consideration for the opposing view for a designer.

If you feel this is wrong then all you have to provide is evidence provided by scientific method that random mutation is random. Save yourself the attempt to assert that RM doesn't mean random. Until the defining of the evolutionary mechanism is redefined to another definition than random you are stuck with it.

If at some point it is redefined as simply mutation you will then be required to provide an explanation by scientific method of how the mutations occur. Simply stating that something changes is not a scientific explanation.
As for natural selection you must provide evidence by scientific method that the natural selection of living organisms can affect what is yet to be produced.

Do you understand the point yet? Notice I didn't have to refer to a designer to crush the evolutionary assertion of fact. all it took was a few scientifically based questions which you cannot answer to show that the entire concept is imagination at work and it is being rejected on that basis.

The fact that some Christians (especially Catholics if they are granted Christian status) accept evolution is irrelevant.
The fact that recent evolution may be true but current thoughts on abiogenesis wrong is also irrelevant.

Whether christian, catholic, atheist, agnostic, buddist, taoist etc. etc. accept evolution is relevant only to the point that it shows belief stacking. How many things can you believe without evidence?
There is a fact of recent evolution? Provide the evidence by scientific method that anything recently evolved by the evolutionary mechanisms spoken about above and don't forget to also provide the evidence that they do in fact work the way you think they do.

[Gman]

No sense in explaining it to you....

We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselfs ... How dare a loving G-d tell me what to do.... Attack... Attack..

Thanks for quoting me again....

[sandy_mcd]

No sense in explaining it to you....

We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselfs ... How dare a loving G-d tell me what to do.... Attack... Attack..

Thanks for quoting me again....

Yep, citation index up!

[sandy_mcd]

A designer may well have arranged the systems in living organisms to adapt and in fact The ID community and I both see the evidence showing just such a system in play.

Now maybe we are getting to something testable. What sort of designed adapting mechanisms are we talking about? How do they work and what changes can they handle? Is this the mainstream evolution with a different explanation? I.e., is it species evolution or just a range within a kind?

[KBCid]

A designer may well have arranged the systems in living organisms to adapt and in fact The ID community and I both see the evidence showing just such a system in play.

Now maybe we are getting to something testable. What sort of designed adapting mechanisms are we talking about? How do they work and what changes can they handle? Is this the mainstream evolution with a different explanation? I.e., is it species evolution or just a range within a kind?

Adaptation (computer science)
The term “adaptation” in computer science refers to a process, in which an interactive system (adaptive system) adapts its behaviour to individual users based on information acquired about its user(s) and its environment.

...it is impossible for developers to anticipate all possible requirements modifications. Thus, the dynamics of changing conditions shifts the customisation process of the system’s characteristics from the development phase to its usage and operation phase because the time needed for a professional development is too short or the new features are too costly.
For this reason, developers implement techniques of adaptation into the system in order to react to changing conditions as fast as possible.

Catalysts for adaptation
Changing conditions trigger the execution of an adaptation. Many characteristics might be taken into account as catalysts for such an adaptation process. They can be clustered into three main categories: inter-individual, intra-individual and environmental differences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation ... r_science)

MSU, other researchers continue change-adaptable software effort
To survive in a constantly changing environment, living creatures learn various techniques of adaptation. Wouldn't it be great if complex computer software systems could do the same?
With that goal in mind, Mississippi State engineer Bharat Soni is part of a national research team formed two years ago to develop such an "intelligent" system. Director of the university's Center for Computational Systems, he is among several MSU engineers, computer scientists and physicists working on the Adaptive Software Project.
"Our goal is to develop principles for building software systems that can adapt to changing conditions, not just to develop the adaptive systems," Soni said. http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=1690

Cornell robot discovers itself and adapts to injury when it loses one of its limbs
Cornell researchers have built a robot that works out its own model of itself and can revise the model to adapt to injury. First, it teaches itself to walk. Then, when damaged, it teaches itself to limp.

The underlying algorithm, the researchers said, could be applied to much more complex machines and also could allow robots to adapt to changes in environment and repair themselves by replacing parts. The work also could have other applications in computing and could lead to better understanding of animal cognition. In a way, Bongard said, the robot is "conscious" on a primitive level, because it thinks to itself, "What would happen if I do this?" http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/nov ... ot.ws.html

There will be no resurecting the anti-watch arguement nor will there be a changing of the goal post for it either. Intelligent agents are working with most every aspect of replication and adaptation. It is now only a matter of time before the bottom up design of life will begin. Then how will you be able to tell the difference between the imaginary natural and designed?

[sandy_mcd]

Intelligent agents are working with most every aspect of replication and adaptation. It is now only a matter of time before the bottom up design of life will begin. Then how will you be able to tell the difference between the imaginary natural and designed?

So, soon intelligent agents [aka people] will be able to build lifeforms which are indistinguishable from natural ones. This doesn't prove anything about about the origin and change of natural lifeforms.

Side issue: What happens to synthetic "humans" when they die?

[RickD]

sandy wrote:

Side issue: What happens to synthetic "humans" when they die?

Don't you know Sandy? They go to synthetic hell. Where Barbie dolls pull off their arms for all eternity, and GI Joe action figures, blow off their limbs with firecrackers, for everlasting torment.

[Pierson5]

You mentioned you had students earlier. May I ask what is your profession? It sounds like you hold a position in academia, is that correct?

Mechanical engineer / Bioengineer. I taught Mechanical engineering for a period of time then went back to school for bioengineering.

So you are obviously involved directly in the academic community. If you honestly think (and I believe you do) that you have solid evidence for ID, or even evidence against evolution, could you not present this evidence to some of your colleagues? If your evidence is truly solid and convincing enough for the scientific community, your colleagues will jump at the chance to revolutionize the foundations of biology. This is the stuff scientific dreams are made of. They would be fools to turn down the Nobel prize, fame and fortune. Unless of course, the evidence is flawed in some way... Which I'm sure they would have no problem explaining to you. There is much to gain and nothing to lose. Have you thought about this before?

[Gman]

You mentioned you had students earlier. May I ask what is your profession? It sounds like you hold a position in academia, is that correct?

Mechanical engineer / Bioengineer. I taught Mechanical engineering for a period of time then went back to school for bioengineering.

So you are obviously involved directly in the academic community. If you honestly think (and I believe you do) that you have solid evidence for ID, or even evidence against evolution, could you not present this evidence to some of your colleagues? If your evidence is truly solid and convincing enough for the scientific community, your colleagues will jump at the chance to revolutionize the foundations of biology. This is the stuff scientific dreams are made of. They would be fools to turn down the Nobel prize, fame and fortune. Unless of course, the evidence is flawed in some way... Which I'm sure they would have no problem explaining to you. There is much to gain and nothing to lose. Have you thought about this before?

Here is some of the evidence brought forth by the ID proponents.. Of course when you say "scientific community" I detect that it can only be "scientific" IF it conforms to the "belief" in Darwinian evolution. Therefore much of what you are saying is biased since not all scientists agree with Darwinian evolution. Of course many agree with micro-evoultion but not the fairly tales of macro-evolution where miracles abound.

http://www.faithandevolution.org/topics ... for-id.php

[coldblood]

Pierson5,
You should weigh the voluminous and incontrovertible arguments put forth by ID scientists against the meager evidence proposed by non-ID proponents, (as if you haven’t already). Of course when you say “ID proponents” you probably should be able to detect that their argument for design is valid only IF it conforms to the belief that the designer is the one and the same extraterrestrial who spoke to Moses through the burning bush. Now, you have been accused of having a bias, and this is justifiable if only because a bias might tend to discredit your viewpoint. On the other hand, the more open discourse you have with ID proponents the more you will almost certainly be impressed with their open-mindedness and flexibility. You will discover that they are virtually, some might say miraculously, free of bias.

[Ivellious]

You should weigh the voluminous

Having a handful of scientific literature on a topic does not make something voluminous. Perhaps you could point me to the secret archives of evidence for ID that has never been published in a reputable journal?

and incontrovertible arguments put forth by ID scientists

About 99.99% of scientists will disagree with labeling ID as "incontrovertible," if not even more than that.

against the meager evidence proposed by non-ID proponents

If "non-ID proponents" are "young-Earth creationists", then yes, this statement is valid...If you mean scientists who accept evolution, well, there's literally thousands of papers and scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals pertaining to and supporting evolution, with hundreds upon hundreds being added to that each year. That sounds much more voluminous than meager to me.

you will almost certainly be impressed with their open-mindedness and flexibility

Sometimes, flexibility isn't the best thing for a scientific theory...Especially in the case of ID, which makes no concrete conclusions, therefore making it open to literally any interpretation that you can think of, from the Christian God magically creating all organisms on Earth, to the less accepted (but still valid under ID) belief that a great and wise space dragon defecated on Earth to form life.

I mean, how do you define flexibility and open-mindedness?

You will discover that they are virtually, some might say miraculously, free of bias

Are you serious? Are you honestly saying that 99.9% of scientists are actually just lying and that a tiny group of mostly american scientists are the only ones who are being honest about it with us?

[sandy_mcd]

Pierson5,
You should weigh the voluminous

[coldblood]

sandy_mcd wrote:
“Are you serious?”

What took you so long to ask?