Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Byblos]

First, preferable to who?

Preferable to scientists. Science observes and models the real world; a number of observations can be reduced to a theory or formulae. "A designer did it" cannot be reduced. Astronomy explains why the earth rotates and predicts the future rate of rotation. A designer did it means that perhaps tomorrow the earth will momentarily cease rotating because the designer wishes it. Evolution explains why early lifeforms were simple. A designer did it could have mastodons appearing at the same time as single cell life forms.

And second, this is yet another false assertion you and Pierson keep making, which is if ID is asserted then all scientific discovery must stop becaue 'God must've done it'.

No, the assertion is that ID stops once design is concluded. A real scientist would view that as a starting point for many questions - is the designer supernatural or natural; did the designer build one life form which could adapt and evolve into everything else or are there multiple continuing instances of designed life appearing; how is the design implemented; what are the limits of adaptability; etc. ID literature as referenced in an earlier post does not address these issues.

If ID doesn't address them it doesn't mean there is no intention to address them, that's the mistake you keep making.

Do you really see KBC backing down from his research because his conclusion is ID?

He stops on the conclusion of design. In an earlier post i quoted he goes from design to God did it in one sentence and has nothing to say about the other questions partially listed above.

And there you go again. Where does it say that once the conclusion is made that it is design that all scientific study will stop? Please show me where it says that.

Do you see any Christian scientist stop their scientific studies because they believe in God? How about Christian astrophysicists? Perhaps they should all go home, maybe the Vatican should just close up shop and send everyone home from their astronomical observatory, (which happens to be one of the leading research institutes in astrophysics in the world) simply because they assert God as the first cause.

I'm not sure what these comments follow from. I have not read anyone proposing this course of action.

They follow from your implications that scientific research stops at some point because an ID conclusion is reached, it might as well just stop when God is asserted, right?

For the last time, I am asking you both to quit doing that. It is demeaning, insulting, and you know damn well it is untrue.

I hope i have cleared up some of your misconceptions about what earlier comments stated.

Nope. Especially considering they're not misconceptions.

[KBCid]

KBC, Would you mind elaborating on the answer you gave Ivellious when he asked how the necessity of of spatiotemporal control system impacts the theory of evolution?

Sure.
The spatiotemporal (S-T) system is how the changes in alleles are implemented into 3 dimensional form. It is this system which is not part of the hypothesis of evolution.
Think about this for a moment... They assert that random mutation or random changes to alleles is how a new specie forms but it doesn't delineate how it does so. If I were to say little pink fairies cause new forms to occur does this provide an acceptable explanation to you? Unless the system is defined then it provides no scientific understanding.
I would further point out that they have not confirmed by scientific method that the changes which are occuring to the alleles are occuring by random mutations either. We have several types of evidence that shows randomness is likely an error. One deals with hot spots and another is this;
Cress overturns textbook genetics
In a discovery that has flabbergasted geneticists, researchers have shown that plants can overwrite the genetic code they inherit from their parents, and revert to that of their grandparents.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/ ... 321-8.html

This shows that there is a control system functioning when it comes to allele changes. Control is not a random occurance.

I don't understand how requiring a designer to institute the 3D control system means that macroevolution of species did not still occur over time. Or are you saying that speciation still could have occurred, but it requires a designer? Thanks, E

To be correct here let's make sure you understand my position. The control system is an absolute necessity. This will be empirically defined as science progresses. The question of how such a system arose without the ability to evolve is where I am asserting the need for a designer to set it up. For me this is the most logical position to take since the minimal requirements to have such an irreducibly complex system function are vast and it would be beyond reason to assert that chance could have formed it. So I have facts about a system in conjunction with a hypothesis about how it arose.
What this boils down to here is that a system requiring a designer to form it that allows for evolution to function means that evolution requires the designed system to exist before it can function. Thus any type of evolution whether micro or macro cannot occur without a designed system being in place. Evolution cannot cause itself to exist. This ultimately means that a designer is required to setup a system that can produce species.

I would also point out that random mutation is not properly explaining how alleles change which means that in conjunction with the (S-T) system required to implement the allele changes into 3 dimensional forms there is almost certainly a system that controls how alleles change as well.
Two independant systems that work together to get varied forms of life. One, (S-T) that is definitely so complex that it is logically beyond chances ability to form and the other which controls allele variation that is still shrouded in mystery to a great extent. I am sure that eventually this system will also become clearer as they perform more testing and 3D visualisation of genetic function in real time.

[sandy_mcd]

If ID doesn't address them it doesn't mean there is no intention to address them, that's the mistake you keep making.

OK, i am willing to admit i am wrong. Please point me to some evidence showing the ID movement is addressing, or intends to address, these issues. The ID websites i have seen have accepted ID sometime ago; what research have they done since?

And there you go again. Where does it say that once the conclusion is made that it is design that all scientific study will stop? Please show me where it says that.

He or the ID sites i have seen do not explicitly say they are doing no more research (and i never claimed that anyone said research would stop). But i request again; show me some evidence of further research. Action (or in this case inaction) speaks louder than words.

They follow from your implications that scientific research stops at some point because an ID conclusion is reached, it might as well just stop when God is asserted, right?

These are two totally different issues:
1) Is there a designer?
2) For those who conclude yes, what can we learn of the designer and his actions? See some of the questions i have posed earlier.
I know a number of Christian scientists who are still doing research, so i know for a fact that merely believing in God does not end a research career. Of course none of these Christian scientists are also notID

The arguement goes forth in this manner. Of what use is the form of a heart without having the command to beat existing at the same time and conversely of what use is a command to beat if there is no heart to carry out the command. Two entirely different formations of matter are separated by a multitude of other formations yet they work in concert to keep not only themselves but every other part of the body in existence.

To an evolutionist this arrangement came into existence by natural occurance. to anyone else who has a semblance of logic such an answer requires evidence. For the rest of us that aren't going to wait for their truth to show up we choose to believe in an intelligent designer. the God of abraham is that designer.

OK, i admit i am wrong. It took KBCid 2 sentences (not the 1 i earlier stated) to go from designer to God.


For perhaps the final time, please show some ID research program which continues after the conclusion of design is reached. What research is being done to learn more about the ways and means of the designer?

Or maybe we should backtrack and start with a more basic question. Has ID been proven scientifically? According to RickD's link:http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

[Byblos]

If ID doesn't address them it doesn't mean there is no intention to address them, that's the mistake you keep making.

OK, i am willing to admit i am wrong. Please point me to some evidence showing the ID movement is addressing, or intends to address, these issues. The ID websites i have seen have accepted ID sometime ago; what research have they done since?

Unless the ID movement specifically states that all research is to stop when an intelligent design hypothesis is concluded then you cannot assume that that's the case.

And there you go again. Where does it say that once the conclusion is made that it is design that all scientific study will stop? Please show me where it says that.

He or the ID sites i have seen do not explicitly say they are doing no more research (and i never claimed that anyone said research would stop). But i request again; show me some evidence of further research. Action (or in this case inaction) speaks louder than words.

See above.

They follow from your implications that scientific research stops at some point because an ID conclusion is reached, it might as well just stop when God is asserted, right?

These are two totally different issues:
1) Is there a designer?

Or is pure chance?

2) For those who conclude yes, what can we learn of the designer and his actions? See some of the questions i have posed earlier.
I know a number of Christian scientists who are still doing research, so i know for a fact that merely believing in God does not end a research career. Of course none of these Christian scientists are also notID

What can we learn about pure chance other than the assumption that it happened? Why are you moving the goal posts from learning about the process (even if ID is asserted) to learning about the designer? In fact there are plenty we can learn about the designer but then you've crossed from the physical realm to the metaphysical realm. We can do so if you wish in a different thread.

The arguement goes forth in this manner. Of what use is the form of a heart without having the command to beat existing at the same time and conversely of what use is a command to beat if there is no heart to carry out the command. Two entirely different formations of matter are separated by a multitude of other formations yet they work in concert to keep not only themselves but every other part of the body in existence.

To an evolutionist this arrangement came into existence by natural occurance. to anyone else who has a semblance of logic such an answer requires evidence. For the rest of us that aren't going to wait for their truth to show up we choose to believe in an intelligent designer. the God of abraham is that designer.

OK, i admit i am wrong. It took KBCid 2 sentences (not the 1 i earlier stated) to go from designer to God.

And exactly what is your point? Did he stop learning, researching, discovering because he reached that conclusion?

For perhaps the final time, please show some ID research program which continues after the conclusion of design is reached. What research is being done to learn more about the ways and means of the designer?

And once again I point you to the research KBC is doing and countless other Christians who haven't discounted ID and who keep plowing in their respective fields.

[KBCid]

The herring gull complex is not a ring species
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 255043.pdf

1) Have the authors denounced evolution?

What was the initial assertion of it being a ring specie based on?

2) Is it possible to accept the conclusion that the herring gull complex is not a ring species based on the evolutionary evidence provided in the paper and yet still deny evolution? How does design explain the figures on pages 897 and 898?

Thats my point sandy it was asserted based on evolutionary considerations and then denounced on them. Obviously the evolutionary rational leaves much to be desired as an explanitory concept.

Has anyone performed an empirical test to see if the alledged 2 ends of the ring cannot produce offspring?.

Did you read the reference i provided? Hint: your answer is in there.

Yup didn't see a reference to the test

Are polar bears and brown bears different species? Are lions and tigers? Both pairs can interbreed and produce offspring.

Who defined what a specie is?

[KBCid]

KBCid, I have a proposition for you, and I just want your honest opinion. If I were to say that I believe it is entirely possible that the first, very simple life-form on Earth did not occur spontaneously, but was in fact created by an intelligent being, and came complete with your spatial regulation mechanism, what would that say about evolution?

I would still say that the evolutionary mechanisms are not defined and don't fit the observable evidence available. However, it would be logical to assume that if a designer made one system then it would be probable that they also designed a controlled variation system as well.

It simply seems to me that your argument of an irreducibly complex system has less to do with evolution and more to do with the origin of life.

It covers both since the system continues to allow for the effect called replication. It is what implements the allele changes into 3 dimensional form at each replication point. So if you want to explain how something becomes something else you will need to define the systems involved in the process. Or you could just ignore them because of the implications they infer.

It seems to me that if we place this under the category of "we don't know exactly how life came to be on Earth", that your example has no effect on the Theory of Evolution itself. That is, if life began with this basic function intact, that evolution taking place afterward would no longer be an issue. I bring it up because you seem set on the issue that this system has to be in place before evolution takes its course. A fair point, but if that is the case your problem is with abiogenesis, not with the evolution of species after the origin of life.

It would if it had no effect beyond just originating life. Buuut, as I just pointed out the system continues in order for replication to persist. When I say "no replication, no evolution" it doesn't just count as a definitive of the beginning, it counts at every replication event which is why it is being revealed and I can reference paper after paper of scientists seeing it operate.
Think about it... we don't know how gravity came to operate but we make sure we account for it because it keeps on operating. Thus you are logically stuck because regardless of whether you want to take it into account or not it is still operating. It is still responsible for translating the encoded information in the alleles into 3 dimensional forms. In fact, every origin of every single form of life owes its formation to this persistent system so it's not just the origin of the first life that counts, it's the origin of every living form to have existed except of course for the very first ones which could not have come to exist by the same method. See if you can figure out why that is so before I give away the answer at the end.

Because of this your example is not like Behe's three major examples. He referenced the bacterial flagellum, the system of blood clotting, and the immune system/antibody system as his examples. All three were nonexistent in early life on Earth and came into place in later species.

Lol. How do you know that those systems were not existent from the beginning. How do you know that they didn't exist from the begining and then were lost in some species? It is all an evolutionary hypothesis with zero evidence and zero testability.

So, his concerns came after life beginning. Now, his examples were all proven to be false in time, but again, his examples were not in the sense of "without this system there is no life", like yours is.

His example were not proven wrong they were hypothesized to be wrong. If you don't believe me then cite the tests that disprove them and then explain how you could disprove it if ID is untestable. lol

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that, barring me totally misunderstanding your example, I don't think your example is valid because evolutionary scientists make no claims about the origins of life. In essence, I don't think most of them would oppose the idea that the first life could have come into place with this system. You continue to push this concept of chemical evolution creating life (a generally unsupported hypothesis) being the exact same thing as biological evolution (which is completely separate). Your thoughts?

Darn you almost sound like your trying to actually have a give and take discussion.
My thoughts here are that you should take into account what I have put in this post. My rational is not simply about the begining of the first life because this system could not have formed the first life. I'm quite sure that I previously stated that the system had to exist within the first life but If by chance I didn't state it clearly before then it is stated now.
I and several other engineers along with several biologists have contemplated what would be necessary to allow this system to begin functioning since one of the biologists asked a very similar question about whether the system could have come to exist by chance and then form the first life.
We all concluded that the system coding even if it existed could not have formed the first life since its existence would require an evolutionary mechanism to become arranged into the irreducibly and highly complex system that it is and it would require a controlled closed structure in order for its functionality to work. If the controlled closed structure didn't exist with it then its processes would be open to the elements and it could not precisely form 3 dimensional structures of matter. The old catch 22.

[KBCid]

What you are saying is that every time a discovery or an observation contradicts a hypothesis within a theory, the theory must be immediately rejected. That's an idiotic assertion.

This seems to be a very common misconception about science. Scientists observe the physical world, construct a model, compare the model to more observations, and discard or adjust the model as necessary.
This adjust the model as necessary causes a lot of problems. Many seem to view it as cheating because changes are made after the initial model is proposed and want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It seems to be an either/or situation. Either the model is totally correct and should be kept, or there is some problem, no matter how small, and everything should be rejected.

I see you two are still learning how the scientific method works. let's review what a scientific theory is;

Scientific theory
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something you throw out there to see if it can be confirmed or falsified by repeated testing.
Of course we all know that historic timelines are untestable by scientific method.

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

See, hypothesis first theory second. When it comes to testing the ToE they make predictions based on it and then hope that evidence will someday confirm it. problem is that they can't define a way of actually testing it. Even the updated timelines are untestable, they are no more rigorous than the first prediction. All that happened when a timeline change occured is that one bit of foolishness that is untestable was logically replaced with another untestable bit of foolishness.

Characteristics of theories
Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Let us all do the "Essential criteria" chant... "The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions."

Modification and improvement of theories
If experimental results contrary to a theory's predictions are observed, scientists first evaluate whether the experimental design was sound, and if so they confirm the results by independent replication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So when we find something 'contrary' to a prediction what are we supposed to do? wring our hands, stomp our feet? or maybe we should test it by 'independent replication'. It would be nice to perform such a action with evolution but guess what? it is untestable.
If you want to further disagree on this then define how to scientifically test a timeline or maybe historic mutational rates or a single common ancestor or how random mutations can generate new species or how natural selection can eliminate bad variation from occuring or or ....

[KBCid]

Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate.

lol, what total bulls*** is this? Honestly, how do you even come up with such an absurd requirement? "Rate of evolution" is not a scientific constant, and absolutely no scientist will tell you it is. The rate that natural selection affects populations is contingent on hundreds if not thousands of factors, so no, you can't just slap a label on evolution saying that it occurs at a constant rate. You would have to take into account environmental factors, competition factors, mutation rates/factors, availability of resources, and any number of other outstanding factors, and you still wouldn't be able to perfectly predict a rate of anything. Especially in the case of ancient whales, where all we have to go off of to give us a timeline is the fossils themselves.

You are working for our side aren't you? C'mon tell the truth cause you are making this wayyyyyy to easy.

Evolution of the mutation rate.
Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms of evolution "requires" information on the "rate" of appearance of new mutations and their effects at the molecular and phenotypic levels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594608

Did you read that alright? "Understanding the mechanisms of evolution "requires" information on the rate". If you can't define how a system functions then it is useless for scientific consideration.

Mutation and Evolutionary Rates in Adélie Penguins from the Antarctic
Abstract Top
Precise estimations of molecular rates are fundamental to our understanding of the processes of evolution. In principle, mutation and evolutionary rates for neutral regions of the same species are expected to be equal.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.1000209

Did you see that? "Precise estimations of molecular rates are fundamental to our understanding of the processes of evolution." Have you actually talked with an evolutionary biologist?

Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rates
The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, harshly described the studies as "garbage." After considering the number of sequences involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion.25 Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA.22 In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an "African Eve" has been invalidated.23

Another interesting aspect of the "molecular clock" theory is the way in which the mutation rate itself was determined. Contrary to what many might think, the mutation rate was not initially determined by any sort of direct analysis, but by supposed phylogenic evolutionary relationships between humans and chimps. In other words, the mutation rate was calculated based on the assumption that the theory in question was already true. This is a rather circular assumption and as such all results that are based on this assumption will be consistent with this assumption - like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since the rate was calculated based on previous assumptions of evolutionary time, then the results will automatically "confirm" the previous assumptions. If one truly wishes independent confirmation of a theory, then one cannot calibrate the confirmation test by the theory, or any part of the theory, that is being tested. And yet, this is exactly what was done by scientists such as Sarich, one of the pioneers of the molecular-clock idea. Sarich began by calculating the mutation rates of various species "...whose divergence could be reliably dated from fossils." He then applied that calibration to the chimpanzee-human split, dating that split at from five to seven million years ago.
Using Sarich's mutation calibrations, Wilson and Cann applied them to their mtDNA studies, comparing "...the ratio of mitochondrial DNA divergence among humans to that between humans and chimpanzees."24 By this method, they calculated that the common ancestor of all modern humans, the "African Eve", lived about 200,000 years ago.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html

Mutation Rate Evolution
We tested the "general reduction principle" by measuring mutation rates of E. coli as it evolved in an unchanging laboratory environment. What we found did not corroborate the "general reduction principle"; in fact, not only was the mutation rate not reduced during evolution in this constant environment, but in three of twelve independent E. coli populations, the mutation rate spontaneously increased by roughly two orders of magnitude! So we decided that a fresh look at the underlying theory was in order.
http://www.unm.edu/~pgerrish/MuRateEvol.html

if you think ID is such a fact, give me a perfect constant rate of creation of new species. And if it is wrong even once, let me tell you that I will hold your own logic against you and say that ID is falsified immediately.

For those of us who are intelligent we need to understand what type of mechanism is functioning BEFORE we make predictions. This is why the evolutionary hypothesis has concepts failing all the time. They don't understand that there is a system much less how the system functions. Of course this doesn't stop them from making circular reasoning predictions.

if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational charactristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.

Really? Mechanical engineering is identical to all sciences? Please define the precise mathematical constants involved in archaeology or the development of human societies. And if ID is a "real" science, hold yourself to your own standards for once and define the mechanism of creation in mathematical terms. And once again, if in a year that formula changes even a little, remember that ID is just wrong, end
of story.

Nope mechanical engineering is not like every other science. Mechanical engineering is actual science based on the scientific method. What can you compare to that?

I also have no idea how you continue to get off saying that the theory must be right at its outset and never once be altered, or else it will be false. What kind of nonsense is that?

The outset of a theory is a hypothesis. You need to comfirm the hypothesis to make a theory and once confirmed it needs to make valid predictions. You know those things that keep failing for the ToE.

We have to remember here the difference between theory and hypothesis as the evo's push it. A theory has enough lines of evidence to back it and the foundational concepts have never been disproven. In mechanical engineering we have a theoretical concept of how the internal combustion engine is supposed to cause a specific effect and if the conceptual mechanism were to change as many times and as far as the mechanism of evolution has we would be back to the hypothetical stage.

Not true. Your combustion engine is a single example that exists within several theories. There is no "Theory of the modern combustion engine." Instead, the combustion engine is simply an aspect of scientific discovery. Discovering a flaw in our knowledge of the combustion engine would not automatically refute all of mechanical engineering on a moment's notice. Nor would it falsify the theories in physics and physical chemistry that it employs.

Oh my...
The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice: Vol. 1 - 2nd Edition, Revised
Thermodynamics, Fluid Flow, Performance
Charles Fayette Taylor
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/de ... 2&tid=6992

AUTO THEORY
Internal Combustion Engine Theory: A First Look
http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/146.cfm

Internal combustion engines, their theory, construction and operation
http://www.archive.org/stream/internalc ... g_djvu.txt

Internal-combustion engines, theory and design: a textbook on internal-combustion engines for engineers and students in engineering
http://books.google.com/books/about/Int ... hMAAAAMAAJ

.....etc. etc. etc.

[Ivellious]

I'll get to more of it later, but your last bit about combustion engines is incorrect. There is a huge differences between a "scientific theory" and "in theory." Your articles are contrasting the concept of combustion engines and how they work "in theory" and how they work "in practice." They seem akin to a physics teacher telling students that "in theory, a force acting on an object should have a certain effect, but in practice you must account for more than just the force." You are mixing definitions of the word "theoretical" and "scientific theory."

[Gman]

You are working for our side aren't you? C'mon tell the truth cause you are making this wayyyyyy to easy.

KBCid.. I read that response and thought the exact same thing... He should be working for us. Sign him up for the ID defenders...

[KBCid]

I'll get to more of it later, but your last bit about combustion engines is incorrect. There is a huge differences between a "scientific theory" and "in theory." Your articles are contrasting the concept of combustion engines and how they work "in theory" and how they work "in practice." They seem akin to a physics teacher telling students that "in theory, a force acting on an object should have a certain effect, but in practice you must account for more than just the force." You are mixing definitions of the word "theoretical" and "scientific theory."

Theory
1: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>
2: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena <a theory of organic evolution>—see atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory
3: a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/theory

Scientific theory
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theoretical
1. of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical ( distinguished from applied).
2. existing only in theory; hypothetical.
3. given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theoretical

[KBCid]

You are working for our side aren't you? C'mon tell the truth cause you are making this wayyyyyy to easy.

KBCid.. I read that response and thought the exact same thing... He should be working for us. Sign him up for the ID defenders...

and G, he isn't stopping either. I feel like i'm being forced to participate in a three stooges marathon. On one hand I feel like i'm on the verge of an IQ decrease and then on the other I feel that this interaction is profitable for others IQ increase. I just can't help myself here.

[Gman]

and G, he isn't stopping either. I feel like i'm being forced to participate in a three stooges marathon. On one hand I feel like i'm on the verge of an IQ decrease and then on the other I feel that this interaction is profitable for others IQ increase. I just can't help myself here.

LOL.. Oh I agree it's interesting.. I too am amazed how easy it is to debate. It's incredible to see how certain people think they've got it all locked up in their "so called" evidence. They say "science" like it is their holy grail even if their science can't explain everything.. Basically you can't measure evolution because you can't measure philosophy.. That's how I see it. I've been saying that for many years now.

Now back to the philosophy debate shall we?

[Eureka]

It seems to me that if we place this under the category of "we don't know exactly how life came to be on Earth", that your example has no effect on the Theory of Evolution itself. That is, if life began with this basic function intact, that evolution taking place afterward would no longer be an issue. I bring it up because you seem set on the issue that this system has to be in place before evolution takes its course. A fair point, but if that is the case your problem is with abiogenesis, not with the evolution of species after the origin of life.

It would if it had no effect beyond just originating life. Buuut, as I just pointed out the system continues in order for replication to persist.

I think what Ivellious is trying to say is that even if a designer is necessary for implementation and continued maintenance of the ST control system, that does not mean that the physical process of one species transitioning into a new species over time did not occur. Even if you were able to prove that the ST system was designed, that does not tell you whether the designer created all different species at one time, or if the designer controlled the gradual transition of a prokaryote to a human being. Proof of a designer would strongly suggest that random mutation/natural selection are not the driving forces behind the evolution of species, but that proof would not negate theistic evolution. It would not prove that we did not all start off as bacteria...or stardust for that matter.

Your argument is not as novel many of the posters here seem to think it is. Unlike the flagella/blood clot arguments, the complex system that you have identified must pre-date evolution. I get that. But your argument is no different from the people who argued that God must exist when the magic of electromagnetism was revealed or the people who argued that God must exist when we first introduced a map of the hydrogen diatom. Those exceptionally complex systems must also pre-date evolution, but the basic paradigm shift that ultimately resulted from huge discoveries like those was a greater interest in gaining knowledge through more observation and analysis--not a sudden shift toward belief in the supernatural. On top of that, spatio-temporal control has been well-recognized throughout biochemical processes for quite some time. I'll put you in touch with professor who taught my grad school protein folding class; he can give you more details about the bioenergetics research that he and others in his field have been doing for forty years. And that's just protein...

We still don't know how energy came into existence, or why nuclear forces behave the way that they do, but the gradual unveiling of really complex ideas and systems is not evidence for or against design. Your argument that you have only seen intelligence create these kinds of systems confuses me a lot. I have never seen humans create something that even comes close to the complex systems that exist everywhere in nature--and even the introduction of "Synthia" that you previously referenced was only achieved through our attempt to mimic what we've observed. I think that a lot of religious arguments for design come from the natural human difficulty in truly understanding "infinity". Christians readily describe God as an infinitely powerful being that has always existed and will continue to exist for all eternity, and they are comfortable with ascribing these characteristics to God because He is supernatural. Why is it okay to ascribe infinite possibilities and eternity to God, but not okay to ascribe infinite possibilities and eternity to the universe? We live on Earth in the Milky Way Galaxy. This is one of >170 BILLION galaxies that have been identified just within the finite Hubble Bubble. And beyond the bubble? Is it really that hard to believe that one micro-environment in ALL OF SPACE over BILLIONS OF YEARS is governed by thermodynamic properties that favor this specific space-time arrangement of matter? If it is difficult for you to imagine, then read some more about how big and old the universe really is. Scientists will continue to reveal complex things, and then dissect those complex things into even more complex and amazing things. And people will probably continue to proclaim that because something is beyond their understanding that God must exist. But I'd say it's pretty arrogant to assume that some higher "intelligence," which we define in our own image as associated with thinking and reasoning, is the only entity with the capacity to create. We are small, and we don't know anything. God just makes that easier to accept.

[Eureka]

And the semantic arguments about "scientific theory" are getting kindof ridiculous. Philosophy of logic has been recognized as conflicting with inductive reasoning. But inductive reasoning is the best we have for a lot of things. Predictions based on the probability that something works one way or another is never logically sound. But putting pieces together is all we can do.